Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 16.09.2004 passed in Consumer Complaint No.220/2003, Ravi P. Chanpanerkar & Anr. V/s. Shri Subhash Pradip Shah, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane.
(2) As per impugned order complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, the Appellant/original Complainants preferred this appeal. The consumer complaint relates to non-supply of the steel for construction work ordered from Respondent/Opponent Shri Subhash Pradip Shah, who has a business of steel supply. Said order was placed, according to Complainant in the month of February, 1999 and also paid `1,00,000/- towards advance payment of the steel to be supplied. It is a case of the Complainant that the trader, Respondent – Shah, failed to supply the steel and therefore, he filed consumer complaint on 19.08.2002, asking relief of refund of price paid for non-supply of goods along with interest etc.
(3) We heard Ld.Counsel for the Appellant. Respondent and its Counsel absent in spite of the notice published on the notice board, internet board and also separate intimation given by post on 01.10.2011. Hence, we preferred to hear the appeal in the absence of the Respondent.
(4) In the instant case, the cause of action for non-supply of goods, if at all arise for this consumer complaint, said to have been arisen in the month of February 1999, when the order was placed and which was expected to be supplied urgently by the Respondent. Since, it is a case of non-supply of the goods, a consumer complaint, if at all such complaint is to be entertained in the name of ‘consumer complaint’, is required to be filed within two years. In the circumstances, the complaint which is filed in the year 2003, as such, is barred by limitation and it cannot be entertained since there is no application for condonation of delay.
(5) From the statement made in the complaint itself, it is a case of breach of contract for non-supply of the goods and considering the nature of reliefs claimed, viz.refund of advance of `1 lac paid with interest, it will not be a consumer dispute.
(6) Apart from this, the trader viz.Respondent – Shah, comes with a case that the goods were already supplied as per Bill No.231. Considering the averments made in the backdrop of this particular case pleaded by the Respondent, the averments in the complaint speak for non-supply of goods per the order. So, it is not a case of non-supply of goods. The Ld.Counsel for the Appellant tried to invite our attention to the notice and submitted that the invoice i.e. Bill No.231 was prepared after the receipt of notice and therefore, the bill produced in evidence during the trial of the complaint cannot be relied upon. We find the statement devoid of any substance. Therefore, since the goods appears to have been supplied, there is no deficiency in service at all in terms can be inferred on part of the supplier under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(7) For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 19th January, 2012.
