Orissa

Rayagada

CC/119/2017

Mr. Santosh Kumar Patro - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s Paramount Automotives - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 119 / 2017.                                       Date.      5  .9. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Mr. Santosh Kumar  Palo, S/O: Suresh Chandra Palo, At/Po: Durgi, Via: Bissamcutttack,   Dist: Rayagada,  State: Odisha           … Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, M/S. Paramount  Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Gandhi Chowk, Jeypore, Dist: Koraput,  State: Odisha.                                       …. Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps :- Sri  Kedar  Nath Samantaray, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps to quash the demand  made in the legal notice Dt. 24.7.2017 by the O.P. a sum of RS. 26,231/-. The brief facts of the case are summarized here under.

That  the complainant  had purchased Tractor  from the  O.P.  on Dt.21.10.2013 . The complainant received a legal notice  on Dt. 24.7.2017  from the O.P.  with demand of  Rs.26,231/-  against  the above Tractor towards    R.C., Insurance etc. after   4(four) years. The above demand   amount had already been paid by the  complainant  to the O.P.  at the time of delivery of the above Tractor. So the question of outstanding dues does not arise after 4(four) years.  If he had any  outstanding against the complainant he would  sent  notice to the complainant  after delivery  of  the vehicle?  But after  4(four) years the O.P. sent legal notice to  the complainant which is barred of limitation  according to law. Hence this C.C. case.   The  complainant prays the forum to quash the demand made in the  legal notice Dt. 24.7.2017 by the O.P.  a sum of Rs. 26,231/- and grant such other relief  as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under circumstances of the case  for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps  and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                    FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had purchased a Tractor  from the O.P. on  Dt. 21.10.2013 bearing chasis No. RJBY00285 under a finance and after payment of down payment  partly a sum  of  Rs.2,12,000/- by the complainant  against the total down payment  of Rs.2,47,699/-  + Insurance premium of Rs.24,717/- + documentation charges of Rs.815/-, which comes to Rs. 61,231/- and after special discount of Rs.35,000/- by the O.P., the balance amount comes to Rs. 26,231/- was outstanding  dues pending from the date of delivery of tractor and since then the said amount is continuing as credit against the complainant and the same amount is pending since long.

The O.P. in their written version  contended while the O.P. demanded the outstanding dues  comes to Rs. 26,231/- as per the audit report and as per the statement of accounts on the complainant.  

In the present case in hand the O.P. has not filed either audit report or  statement of accounts   before the forum during the course of hearing  to substantiate the objection made by  the  complainant as barred of limitation inter alia the complainant in their petition  clearly  mentioned  that he had already paid the above amount   to the O.P.  at the time of delivery of the above Tractor.

The complainant during the  course of hearing  vehemently  argued   and pointed out that    that the present case arose   the period of limitation of two years on the date of alleged cause of action i.e.  Dt. 21.10.2013 on which date the Tractor was purchased  and the O.P. had sent legal notice  on Dt. 24.07.2017 to the  complainant after  more than two years. 

       We perused the complaint petition and written version  filed by both the parties  and on perusal of documents it reveals  that the cause of action arose in the present case   on  Dt.21.10.2013 but the O.P. had sent legal notice  on Dt. 24.07.2017 to the  complainant after two years   which is a time barred.

            “Section 24 A  Limitation period  of the Consumer Protection Act : 

 

                (l) 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.

(2)  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, 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:

                        Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”                                               

                        It is held and reported in  2005(iv) CPJ-1 (S.C) in  the  case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vrs. B.K.Sood where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to the provisions of Section-24A of the C.:P.Act,1986 inter-alia observed as under in para-11

                        “The Section debars any  Fourm set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen”.

                        Again it is held and reported  in 2009(II) CPJ-29 SC  in the case of State Bank of India Vrs. B.S.Agricultural Industries where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the provision of Section 24-A of the C.P.Act, 1986 inter-alia observed and held as under in para -8

                        “It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that is peremptory in nature  and requires  Consumer forum to see before  it admits the complaint that it has been filed  within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer forum, however, for the reason to be recorded in  writing may condone the delay in  filing  the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section-24A is sort of  a legislative command to be Consumer Forum   to examine  on its own whether the complaint  has been filed with in limitation period prescribed  thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the  complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause  of action and if beyond  the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the  reasons recorded in writing.  In other words,  it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section -24A and give  effect  to it.  If the complaint is barred  by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides  the  complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality  and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to  have   such order set aside”.

                        Further it is held  reported  in  2010(iv) CPJ-27  in  the case   of V.N.Shrikhande(Dr.)  Vrs.  Anita  SenaFernandes,  where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that Section 24 A (1) contains a negative legislative  mandate against admission of a complaint which has been  filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. It was further  observed  that the Consumer Forum do not  have the jurisdiction   to entertain a complaint  if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  The Apex Court  held   that if the complaint is per se barred  by time  and the complainant  does not seek condonation of delay under Sub-Section – 24  A (2), the consumer forums will have  no option but to  dismiss the same”.

                        The provision of Section -24  A  of the Act being mandatory and rather  peremptory in nature,  this forum  has no  jurisdiction to entertain  a complaint after expiry of the prescribed    period of limitation, unless the complainant filed  an appropriate application  under  Sub-Section (2) of the said section and satisfies it that he/she  had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint   within the prescribed  period of two years  from the date on which   the cause of action had arisen. 

In  view  of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding, that the O.P. has miserably failed  inter alia  there is no iota of any  cogent  evidence filed by the O.P before the forum to prove  its case, that  he  had made  any  correspondence  to the complainant  within   two years  from the date of  cause of action  i.e. on Dt.  21.10.2013  to till 20.10.2015. Hence at present in this    case   no liability  can be fastened  by the O.P.  on the complainant as it is  hit under  Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            It is clear from the records, that the O.P. had a period of 2 years available to him to  demand  Rs.26,231/- towards  registration  charges of the tractor from the complainant. But he failed to do so.  In this back ground, we find no merit in this case to demand Rs. 26,231/- to the complainant by  the O.P. in shape of legal notice Dt.24.7.2017  after 4 years.

            Further no documentary evidence  or connected correspondence  filed by the O.P. to substantiate non payment of  Rs.26,231/- by the complainant to the O.P.

            Again the O.P. has failed to produce any communication/letter addressed by him to the complainant  demanding the payment of the balance amount a sum of Rs. 26,231/- or having  issued any notice within a two years from the date of cause of action.  It is clear from the records and established that no such notice was issued to the complainant by the O.P.

            Under the above circumstances,  this forum feel to  exonerate the no nest demand   of the legal notice Dt. 24.7.2017    of the O.P. where by the amount of Rs.26,231/- has been demanded  by the O.P. inter alia quashed  the demand made by the O.P.

This forum  completely agreed with the views taken in the complaint petition  by the complainant in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the O.P is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER

.In  resultant the complaint petition stands  allowed on contest.

The Legal Notice Dated. Dt. 24.7.2017 issued by the O.P. in favour of the complainant is not legally sustainable inter alia demand of Rs. 26,231/- is no nest towards registration charges of Tractor is hereby quashed  due to time barred claim.   .

In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

 

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this       5^th.           Day of   September,  2018.

 

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                                             President