THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH).
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 222/2021
Sri. Munithimmaiah C
S/o Chikkatimmaiah,
A/a 58 years, R/at
Muddaramaiahnapalya
Obalapura Post,
Tumakuru Taluku and Dist.
……….Appellant/s.
(By Shri/Smt. Kishan G.S., Adv.,)
-Versus-
State Government Houseless Harijan
Employees Association (Regd.),
Jagajyothi Basaveshwara Road,
Shantinagara, Tumakuru-572 102
A Society registered under the
Karnataka Societies registration Act,
Represented by its President/Secretary
:ORDERS ON ADMISSION:
BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI - MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated:18.01.2021 passed by Tumkur District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.8/2021.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant is a bus conductor and working in KSRTC who belongs to S.C. category. The complainant made payment of Rs.15,000/- on 10.01.1999 towards membership and initial deposit for allotment of site in Rama Jois Layout, Tumkur to be formed by the Opposite Party/Society. The Opposite Party admitted the complainant as a member of Society with assurance that it would allot a site measuring 30X40 Sq.Ft. in Rama Jois Layout formed by them near Shantinagar, Tumakuru on further payment of Rs.25,000/- at the time of execution of registered sale deed. The complainant further submitted that the complainant has approached the Opposite Party number of times, but its President and Directors of the Society went of assuring that they would allot a site in future. Later, the complainant got issued legal notice on 04.11.2020 to the Opposite Party calling upon to allot and register a site as assured by them. On receipt of the notice, the Opposite Party has given reply denying all the allegations including payment of Rs.50,000/- towards membership and initial deposit for allotment of site. Hence, the complaint.
4. The Opposite Party has denied all the allegations including payment of Rs.15,000/- towards membership and initial deposit for allotment of site in the reply notice
5. The District Commission at the threshold dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant is in appeal on various grounds.
7. Heard arguments of appellant on admission. Issuance of notice to Opposite Party is dispensed with.
8. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Tumkur and materials placed on record, we noticed that the respondent denied all allegations of the complainant in reply notice and contened that they never assured the complainant that they would allot a site and execute the registered sale deed on receipt of Rs.25,000/. Anyhow the complainant became a member of Opposite Party/Society in the year 1999 and after lapse of more than 20 years, the complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 04.11.2020 and filed the complaint before the District Commission, Tumkur in the year 2021. In this regard, Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 reads as under:-
Limitation Period:
- The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a compliant unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-Section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
9. Hence, in our opinion, there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint in lower court. The averment of the complainant on the basis of allegations contained in the complaint was clearly barred by limitation as two years period prescribed U/s 69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 which was expired much before the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission, Tumkur. Moreover, there was not even any prayer by the complainant in his complaint for condoning the delay. It is settled preposition in the law that burden is always upon the complainant to file an application for delay condonation and to given sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. If provisions are stipulated in law, it has to be applied with sincerity and pragmatism. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has approached the Opposite Party number of times before issuing the legal notice. Mere allegations in complaint are not sufficient to prove his allegations without any documents.
10. Perused the materials on record produced before the Lower Court. The complainant has produced Xerox copy of voucher of Rs.15,000/-, wherein it is mentioned that “………….. being the deposit for sites and expenses of the Supreme Court fee…….” Since the complaint is barred by time and liable to be dismissed on that count, it would be unnecessary to examine the other grounds. Hence, in our opinion, the District Commission, Tumkur has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. We do not found any merits in this appeal. Hence, appeal fails. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
The impugned order dated:18/01/2021 passed by the Tumkur District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.8/2021 is hereby confirmed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
