IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:15.10.2014

First Appeal- 917/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 02.06.2014 passed in Complainant Case No. 284/2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

Shri Hari Om Goyal,

S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Goyal,

R/o C-1/29, Main Road,

New Kondly, Delhi-110096.

                                                                                            ….Appellant

Versus

1. The State of N.C.T.,

(Distt. Consumer Redressal Forum).

1. The Prime Tradex Pvt. Ltd.,

Now Orion Automobiles Delhi

Pvt. Ltd., 315, Patparganj,

Industrial Area, Delhi-110092.

1. The Udit Communications,

34-A, Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar,

Phase-III, Delhi-110096.

….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member Judicial

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1. Heard Shri  Ramesh Chand Goyal,  Father/AR of the appellant.

1. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

The father of the appellant herein had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum alleging therein that two batteries bearing Nos. 710200 and 710197 make Daewoo were purchased by his son i.e. appellant on 01.11.2007 from respondent No.3 for a sum of Rs.13,400/- (Rs.6,700/- each) vide Bill No.537.  It was alleged that from the date of purchase, batteries were not working properly and several complaints were lodged by him which were never attended by respondent No.3.  Thereupon he  had contacted Respondent No.2 herein i.e. OP No.1 before the District Forum for replacement of batteries and the same were replaced.  It was alleged that again the batteries were having the same problem and the same were deposited with respondent No.2 in October, 2008.  It was alleged that respondent No.2 pressurized for settling the matter for a sum of Rs.7,000/- which was not agreed by the appellant.  Thereupon a notice was sent to respondents but of no result.  Ultimately a complaint was filed before the District Forum on 14.2.2009.  The said complaint was dismissed on 14.9.2009.  The aforesaid order was challenged before the State Commission by filing an appeal which was also dismissed.  Ultimately the father of appellant approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein he was allowed to withdraw the revision petition and appellant was given an opportunity to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995, 3 SCC, 583.

1. Thereupon the appellant filed a fresh complaint being case No. 284/13 before the District Forum which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 02.06.2014 being barred by limitation. 

1. Aggrieved with the same, the present appeal is filed.

1. On behalf of the appellant, his father being his special attorney has addressed the arguments and has submitted that the order of the District Forum is not in accordance with law.  It is submitted that considering facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum ought not have dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation after keeping the same pending for about 14 months.  It is submitted that in the interest of justice, the District Forum ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to move an application for condonation of delay.

1. We have heard the submissions made.

1. It may be noticed that the respondents were proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum.

1. Earlier the father of the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum which was dismissed by the District Forum on 14.9.09 as is seen from factual background stated in the appeal.  Thereafter he had challenged the same before State Commission.  Even appeal was dismissed.  However, no such orders are annexed with the present appeal.  Thereupon his father had filed a revision petition before the National Commission wherein on 15.02.2013, following order has been passed:

“Mr. Amit Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

Arguments heard.

It is clear that the batteries in question are purchased by Shri Hari Om.  The complaint has been filed by Shri Ramesh Chandra Goyal.  It is stated that Shri Hari Om is his son.  This does not make him a consumer.  Real consumer is Shri Hari Om.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this revision petition.

The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn.  The petitioner is given liberty to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995, 3 SCC, 583.  Liberty is also given to seek appropriate leave before the appropriate forum after seeking condonation of delay.”

1. The National Commission had given liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate leave before the appropriate forum after seeking condonation of delay. However, no such application was filed by him along with the complaint or even thereafter the batteries in question were purchased in the year 2007.  Even earlier the complaint was filed by his father.  The complainant is an educated person.  He has been pursuing his case for past several years.  No justified reasons are given as to why the application for condonation of delay was not filed when there were specific directions by the National Commission.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.  No illegality is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission.  Appeal is dismissed.

1. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.

1. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.