COMMON ORDER ON I.A. NO-1 FILED U/SEC. 24(A)(2) OF C.P.ACT The complainant by name P. Jayashrri in C.C.No. 65/10 filed her complaint against the opposites 1 & 2 for to issue directions to opposites to re-deliver her vehicle bearing No. KA-36/3619 or to pay the value of the vehicle of Rs. 3,75,000/- with compensation and cost. 2. The complainant by name P. Narasimayya @ Narasimhalu filed this complaint against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 for to redeliver his vehicle bearing No. KA-36/3583 or to pay the price of the vehicle of Rs. 3,50,000/- with compensation and cost. 3. IA.No-1 is filed by complainants in CC.No. 65/10 & in CC.No. 70/10 U/sec. 24(A)(2) of CPC for to condone the delay of 1 year 3 days in filing complaint bearing CC.No. 65/10 and 1 year 25 days in filing complaint bearing CC.No. 70/10. 4. The grounds urged in both the applications are on similar grounds and objections filed by the opposites are also on common grounds, as such these two applications heard together and disposed off them by this common order. 5. The brief facts of the applications filed by each of them are that, they have purchased TATA SUMO vehicle bearing No. KA-36/3583 & bearing No. KA-36/3619 respectively with financial assistance of opposites, they have paid substantial amount towards the loan, but opposites illegally seized the vehicle in the first week of August 2007. Both of them have requested the opposites to redeliver the vehicles, but they have not released the vehicle in their favour and dragged on one or the other grounds with false promise. Lastly on 02-05-10 they insisted opposite No-1 to redeliver the vehicle, thereafter on 05-05-10 & 13-07-10 they requested them by issuing legal notices, they have not considered their requests, therefore these two complaints have been filed. There was delay in filing those complaint for the above said reasons, as such each of them prayed for to condone the delay in filing their complaints. 6. Opposite No. 1& 2 appeared in this case filed objections on common grounds to the said applications separately by contending that, the complainant of each cases are defaulters. Hence their vehicles were seized in the month of August-2007, thereafter opposites have issued two notices to the complainant by calling upon them to pay of due amount, they have not paid due amount. Hence those vehicles were disposed of on 10-12-07, hence the grounds urged by both of them in these two applications are not proper and correct there was abnormal delay and absolutely there are no grounds for to condone such delay, accordingly they prayed for to dismiss IA No-1 filed by each complainant among other grounds. 7. In-view of the contentions and Rival contentions of the parties in these two petitions. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant in CC.No. 65/10 and complainant in CC.No. 70/10 have made out proper sufficient and good grounds for to condone the delay of 1 year 3 days and 1 year 25 days respectively as prayed in their IA.No.1.? 2. What order? 8. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the Negative. (2) In view of the finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following: REASONS POINT NO.1:- 9. Section 24(A) (1) of C.P. Act is a legislative command to entertain the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. Section 24(A)(2) provides to entertain the complaint after two years with sufficient cause. 10. In the present case as admitted by all the parties the vehicle bearing No. KA-36/3583 & vehicle bearing No. KA-36/3619 have seized by the opposites in the first week of August 2007. Thereafter those two vehicles have sold out in public auction on 10-12-07. Keeping in view of these undisputed facts, now we have to see as to whether the reasons mentioned in the said two applications are proper and sufficient reasons for to condone the delay of 1 year 3 days and 1 year 25 days as prayed in these two petitions. 11. On perusal of the affidavits filed by both the complainants annexed to their respective petition clearly goes to show that, these two complaints are time barred complaints because of the fact that, they have not filed these two complaints within two years from the first week of August 2007 which is the date of seizer of the vehicles or within two years from 10-12-07 which is the sale of those two vehicles under public auction. The main contention of these two petitioners are that, opposites have dragged on their requests with one or the other reasons with false promise. It appears to us that, this is the ground made out by these two petitioners for to condone such abnormal delay. Non repudiating the claim of the complainant is not the grounds for to enlarge the limitation period of two years, in the similar way the grounds as stated by them are also not proper sufficient and good grounds to enlarge the limitation period of two years and to condone the abnormal delay of 1 year 3 days and 1 year 25 days respectively. 12. Issuing legal notices dt. 05-05-10 & 13-07-10 are not creating any fresh cause of action for each complainant to file their respective complaints U/sec. 12 of C.P. Act. In this regard we have followed the principles of the rulings reported in : 1. (2009) 7 SCC 768 Kandimalla Raghavayya V/s. National Insurance Company. 2. Sidramappa V/s. Rajshetty & Others AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1059. 3. AIR (2009) Supreme Court 2210 State Bank of India V/s. M/s. B.S. Agriculture Industry. 4. Haryana Urban Development Authority V/s. B.K. Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164. 5. Ganamani Anasuya & Others V/s. Parvatini Amarinder Chowdary & Others (2007) 10 SCC 296. 13. No other proper, sufficient and good grounds shown by each of them to condone such abnormal delay in filing their respective complaints, accordingly we answered Point NO-1 as in Negative. POINT NO.2:- 14. In-view of our finding on Point No-1, in CC.No. 65/10 & CC.No. 70/10 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER I.A.No-1 filed by the complainant U/O. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act in CC.No. 65/10 is dismissed. I.A.No-1 filed by the complainant U/O. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act in CC.No. 70/10 is dismissed. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant bearing CC.No. 65/10 and another complaint filed by the complainant bearing CC.No. 70/10 are dismissed as time barred. Keep the copy of this order in CC.No. 70/10. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-11-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
