Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/159/2014

M/s Kulija Industries Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager Complaints Skoda Auto India Privat Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurinderjit Singh,Adv

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	159 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	31.03.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10.09.2015

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Kulja Industries Limited, Plot No.1, Industrial Estate, Chambaghat, Solan 173213 (H.P.) through its Managing Director Sh.Bhawani Dutt.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  The General Manager (Complaints), Skoda Auto India Private Limited, A-I/1, M.I.D.C. Five Star Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad 431 201

 

2]  M/s Krishna Auto Sales, 177-e, Ind. Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002 through its Authorised Representative.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Sh.Gurinderjit Singh, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Counsel for the Opposite Party

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          Earlier this complaint stands dismissed for non-prosecution vide our order dated 02.01.2015 against which the complainant preferred F.A. No.24/2015 before the Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 02.03.2015 accepted the appeal filed by the complainant and order of this Forum was set aside and the case was remanded back with a direction to restore the same, to its original number proceed further, from the stage, at which it was dismissed in default of appearance of the complainant, and decide the same, afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, the complainant was also burdened with costs of Rs.5000/-, which was paid by him.

 

2]       As per the case, the complainant purchased a vehicle, made SKODA Auto, from the Opposite Parties. The said vehicle was subsequently allotted registration no. HP-14A-0065, by the Registering Authority, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. It was stated that the said vehicle, developed a manufacturing defect. As such, the said vehicle was taken to the workshop of the Opposite Parties, a number of times, for rectification of the defects, but they failed to do so. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were requested to rectify the defects, in the said vehicle, or if the same were beyond repairs, to replace the same (vehicle), with a new one, but to no avail. It was further stated that, left with no other alternative, legal notice dated 16.07.2012 Ann.C-8, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs, against the Opposite Parties.

 

3]       Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was barred by time. It was further pleaded that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that since the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the Company, meaning thereby for commercial use, the consumer complaint was not maintainable. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, in question. It was stated that the complainant was asked a number of times, to get the vehicle repaired, on payment of the requisite amount, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant was bound to make the payment for repairs to be carried out, after the expiry of the period of warranty. It was further stated that the vehicle had covered more than 1,10,000 kilometers, during the period of six years. It was further stated that since the vehicle, was beyond the warranty period, as such, an estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for replacement of various parts, was given, but the same was not approved by the complainant, and, as such, the same (vehicle) was lying in the workshop of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

 

         The Opposite Party No.1 adopted the reply and evidence filed by Opposite Party No.2 vide statement and order dated 6.6.2014. 

 

4]       The complainant filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the written statement of the OPs.

5]       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7]       The complainant on earlier occasion had preferred a consumer complaint against the Opposite Parties on 14.9.2012 before the Ld.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan and the same was ordered on 10.1.2014 by the Ld.Forum, to be returned to the complainant for its presentation before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction over the matter, if the complainant desires to do so.  The complainant after these orders, preferred to file the present compliant before this Forum on 31.3.2014. 

 

8]       On perusal of the original complaint filed before the Ld.District Forum, Solan, it is revealed that the complainant had registered its grievance before the Opposite Parties through a legal notice dated 4.2.2012.  On perusal of this document/legal notice, it is noticed that letters dated 29.10.2009, 17.11.2011, 12.12.2011 and 19.11.2012 have been referred to show the continuity of its grouse against the OPs. Therefore, if we consider the last communication dated 19.12.2011, to be the cause of action against the Opposite Parties to file the present complaint raised through its legal notice dated 4.2.2012, the limitation period to file a consumer complaint is limited to a period of two years as per C.P.Act, 1986, therefore, the consumer complaint filed before the Ld.District Consumer Forum, Solan, though was within the limitation period, but at the time of returning the complaint on 10.1.2014, for its presentation before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction, the limitation period had already expired.  Even if we consider that after the passage of the order dated 10.1.2014, there was a grace period after the return of the complaint till the same was presented before another appropriate Forum, such grace period could only be limited to 30 days time, but the complainant took nearly 2½ months before presenting this complaint before this Forum on 31.3.2014.  There is no application for condonation of delay from the side of the complainant giving plausible reason for such delay nor there is any affidavit on record by the ld.Counsel for the complainant describing the reasons about such a long delay in presenting this complaint before this Forum. 

9]       It is also necessary to mention here that we are bound by the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi vide which it had opined that any period of time that has been wasted by the complainant by approaching a wrong Forum would not entitle him any grace in the period of limitation on such score and any such delay cannot be condoned as held in the case titled Agari Enterprises Vs. Sesappa Saphaliga & Anr.-I(2013) CPR 101 (NC). Hence, the present complaint is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10]     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation, with no order as to costs. 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the complainant, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th September, 2015           

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.159 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 10th day of September, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member