O R D E R
- The order arises on the admission of complaint.
- The complainant Mr.Hussain M.M, aged 47 years, resident of Madikeri, Kodagu District has purchased vehicle LGV LI, Dost LS BS III chassis No.MB 1 AA 22 EOFRA1283, Engine No.AFHO 1919P (KA12 B 2556) from the opponent No.1 M/s Ashoka Layland Authorized Dealer Mysore in the year 2015 for Rs.5,50,000/- for his self-employment.
- On running of 10,000 kilometer on 27/10/2015 the complainant went to the opponent no.1 show room for first free service of the goods vehicle. The complainant showed the defects in the body and rust formed in the body of the vehicle. The opponent assured of rectifying the same in the second and third service, but did not attend the same. There after the complainant has issued legal notice dated 14/07/2018 for that the opponent has given false reply. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for not rectifying the defects in the body of the vehicle.
C.C.59/2018
-: 3 : -
- The complainant’s learned counsel produced the owner’s manual of the vehicle after advancing their arguments on the point of admission of the complaint. According to the owner’s manual the coupon was taken by the dealer which reveals the date of delivery of vehicle on 06/07/2015. The complainant has left the vehicle with the opponent for free services three times the first free service was done on 27/10/2015, the second on 19/12/2015 and third service on 02/05/2016 after running 20150 kilometers. According to the service manual produced by the complainant he was entitled to third free service on running 20000 kilometers or 9 months from the date of purchase of vehicle whichever is earlier. The complainant has not used the fourth free service as he would have used it after running 30,000 kilometers or 12 months from the date of purchase of vehicle whichever is earlier.
- According to the allegations of the complaint the complainant has noticed defects in the body of the vehicle that is rust formed in the body of the vehicle during the first free service on 27/10/2015. This is the cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint. According to the complainant his last free service used by him is on 02/05/2016. Even after 02/05/2016 when the opponent did not attend his complaint i.e., formation of rust in the body of the vehicle he would have approached the District Forum within the limitation. According to section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The cause of action has arisen to the complainant when for the first time he noticed the defect in the body of the vehicle on first free service i.e., on 27/10/2015. Even
- C.C.59/2018
-: 4 : -
for arguments sake the allegation of the complaint that the opponent has assured to attend the repair or complaint, he would have approached this Forum within two years from the date of last free service i.e., 02/05/2016. This complaint is filed on 19/09/2018 after expiry of two years from 02/05/2016. Therefore, this complaint is barred by time as per section 24(A) of the Act i.e., after two years from the cause of action arose to the complainant. On the point of limitation the complaint deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
- The complaint filed by Mr. Hussain.M.M. s/o. Mohammed.M.K, resident of Madikeri is hereby dismissed as it is barred by limitation.
- Furnish copy of the order to complainant at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 06th day of OCTOBER, 2018)
(C.V. MARGOOR)
PRESIDENT
(M.C. DEVAKUMAR)
MEMBER
CC 15-2018
ORDER ON I.A. NO.1
The order has arisen out of I.A No.1 filed by the complainant under Order 18 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC to recall the opponents for cross examination.
The complainant Mr.M.A. Ponnanna filed this complaint against the opponent No.1 the Chief Executive Officer, KDCC Bank, Madikeri and the opponent no.2 Manager, KDCC Bank, Kutta Branch, Virajpet Taluk, South Kodagu with a prayer to direct the opponents to pay damages of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till the realization and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to him for loss and mental sufferings.
It is the case of complainant that he being the member and account holder of opponent no.2 since 1998. The opponents have agreed to sanction loan a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- for construction of a coffee godown in land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village. Even after getting opinion from the legal advisor the opponents have refused to sanction the loan. By this time the complainant has spent more than Rs.1,40,000/- to collect the documents and for foundation work.
The opponents filed version admitting that the complainant has approached for sanction of loan for the purpose stated in the complaint, but this opponents refused to sanction the loan as the complainant’s brother filed a suit in O.S.No.34/2017 on the file of the Civil Judge Court at Virajpet where in the court has passed interim order. The complainant has suppressed the fact of pending litigation seeking partition in the family properties including land Sy.No.90/5 of Poradu Village.
The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced as many as 17 documents marked as exhibits P1 to P17. On the same line on behalf of opponents Manager of Kutta Branch filed his affidavit evidence and marked exhibits R1 to R10 documents. When the case was set down for arguments the complainant has come up with I.A.No.1 to recall the opponent for cross examination.
The complainant in the affidavit filed in support of I.A stated that the cross examination of opponent is not done and it is just and necessary to recall him for cross examination. If the opponent is not cross examined he would put to irreparable loss.
The complainant has submitted written arguments on I.A.No.1 whereas the opponents have advanced oral arguments.
The proceeding before the District Consumer Forum is summary in nature. Further on the basis of affidavit evidence and documents produced by both the parties the complaint can be disposed off. There is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act to cross examine the complainant and opponents unless there is a disputed expert’s / laboratory opinion. The complainant has sought relief for not sanctioning loan as promised by the opponents earlier. Both the sides have produced ample documentary evidence apart from affidavit evidence. There are no grounds to recall the opponent for cross examination. Firstly there is no provision to call the witness for cross examination and secondly on the basis of materials placed in this case the complaint can be disposed off. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
OR DER
I.A.No.1 filed by the complainant under Order 18 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC is dismissed.
CC 15-2018
