BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.14/15.
Date of instt.: 19.01.2015.
Date of Decision: 14.09.2015.
M/s. Matrasudha Organic Foods Vs. OIC.
Application for dismissal of complaint being time-barred and being second complaint.
Present: Sh. Niranjan Dhull, Adv. for the complainant-respondent.
Sh. M.R.Miglani, Adv. for the respondent-applicant.
Vide this order, we shall dispose off the application moved by the Op-applicant on 07.08.2015 for dismissal of the complaint being time-barred and being second complaint. It is alleged in the application that the complainant had previously filed a complaint No.257/2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.2014 and no permission has been granted by this Forum to file fresh complaint, so, the same is hit by principle of res-judicata and also time-barred. Ld. Counsel for the Op-applicant has also submitted authorities titled as Ganpat Rama Madhavi Vs. NIA, 2012(1) CPC page 105 (NC) and Purusharath Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uppal Housing Ltd. & others, 2012(3) CPC page 341 (NC). The complainant-respondent has filed the reply of the application of Op alleging therein that the application is not maintainable; the contents of application is a matter of record to the extent of dismiss as withdrawn of complaint No.257/2013.
It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had filed a complaint registered at No.257/2013 and the same was with regard to the death of cow bearing tag No.8014 and now the present complaint has been filed qua the death of cow bearing tag No.8072. It is admitted by the complainant in his complaint in para No.12 that he had filed a complaint before this Forum regarding the same subject-matter and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt. 11.12.2014. No doubt, the then counsel for complainant had made a statement that he wants to file a fresh complaint but no permission has been granted by this Forum for the same. So, the complaint is hit by the principle of resjudicata and the complainant has no exemption in the limitation period. The present complaint has been filed on 19.01.2015 and the same has been registered at Sr.No.14. According to the complainant, the cow in question had died on 16.08.2010 and this fact is also mentioned as such in the complaint.
It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the complaint. In the application, the complainant stated that there was a delay of four days in filing the complaint as the mother of complainant was seriously ill and was admitted in the hospital. In support of his contention, the complainant has not attached any document regarding the admission of his mother in the hospital. Moreover, the complaint is hopelessly time-barred and if the condonation of four days is allowed, even then the complaint is time-barred.
From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complaint is hopelessly time-barred as the cow in question had died on 16.08.2010 and the complaint is filed on 19.01.2015. The authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the Op titled as Ganpat Rama Madhavi Vs. NIA (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of present case. Without going into any other controversy, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of time-barred.
Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the application for dismissal of complaint filed by the Op and dismiss the application for condonation of delay fled by the complainant and resultantly, dismiss the complaint being time-barred. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:
Dated:-14.09.2015.
President.
Member Member
