Haryana

Panchkula

CC/227/2021

K.C GAMBHIR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UK COLONIZERS & DEVELPOERS PVT.LTD - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

31 May 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	227 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	17.05.2021
Date of Decision	:	31.05.2021

                                              ++                                                              

KC. Gambhir, resident of 151, GH-3, MDC, Sector-5, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                               ….Complainant

Versus

1. UK Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., R/o VPO-Karala, Banur, District-Mohali, Punjab.
2. DGP Punjab, Police HQ, Sector-19, Chandigarh.

                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                   Mr.Satpal, President.

                               Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                               Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:      Complainant in person.

                                

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.                  Today the case is fixed for consideration on its admissibility. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that OP No.1 issued two post dated cheuqes for a sum of Rs.62,250/- and Rs.51,812/- dated 16.11.2015 and 04.12.2015 respectively. On presentation, both the cheques were got dishonoured by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 8C, Chandigarh with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’. A registered notice was sent to OP No.1 to ensure the payments with damages, but same was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. OP No.2 has been approached through various letters and reminders to take action against OP No.1, who went underground and learnt to have left the country, but no positive action has been taken by Op No.2 against OP No.1. Through RTI also, OP No.2 was approached to give information, but of no avail. The FAA-cum-Chief Secretary, Punjab was also approached for intervention through registered letter dated 02.12.2019, under RTI Act, 2005, but of no avail. P.S.I.C. Chandigarh accepted the petition under case No.1001 of 2020 and date of hearing was fixed by the Punjab Commission for 06.08.2020, through CISCO Webex at Item No.5 and was disposed off as ‘closed’. It is submitted that the said case was closed by the Commission, because of the manipulations done by Shri Maninder Singh, Sr. Constable of OP No.2, illegally and intentionally. Home Minister of India through PMO Office has been approached through registered letter dated 13.08.2020, with the copy to the Chief Minister, Punjab at Chandigarh. The case was closed as conveyed to him vide message dated 18.04.2021 and in this regard, the Supt. Grievances under Shri P.C. Meena, IAS , Nodel Officer, Haryana was contacted through landline phone, who stated the reason of closing of the complaint, that the case does not relate to Haryana. Action of OPs No.1 and 2 falls under misleading and false promises to the complainant for giving two plots in the developed township, but nothing was done as OP No.1 had absconded and OP No.2’s staff helped OP No.1 in leaving the country. It is further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment and thus it is prayed that the OPs be directed to pay the amount of two cheques along with 15% interest and Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation charges.

                    The complaint was presented before us on 17.05.2021 for consideration on its admissibility, but in view of the alarming situation arising out of Covid-19 cases in the City as well as two officials of this Commission, being infected with Covid-19, the complaint was adjourned to 26.05.2021 i.e. today for consideration on its admissibility. On 26.05.2021, complainant heard through video call on whtsapp, and on her request case was adjourned to 31.05.2021, for consideration on the admissibility of the complaint.  

                     Today the complainant has been heard at length. We have perused the complainant along with all its Annexures, thoroughly and minutely.

2.                A complaint before it is admitted for adjudication is required to qualify, inter alia, various parameters, which may be enumerated as below;

1. That the complainant falls under the category of a consumer and that there exist a consumer dispute.
2. That the complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation as required under Section 69 (1) of CP Act,2019.
3. That the relief claimed do not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.
4. That this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

            The above parameters are being discussed in the same seriatim  as under:-

3. Regarding the status of the complainant as consumer, we find no such documents on record which establishes that the complainant falls under the category of consumer. As per averments made in para No.1 of the complaint, it is stated that the opposite part No.1 issued two post dated cheques for a sum of Rs.62,250/- and 51,812/- respectively. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 8C, Chandigarh with the remarks as ‘insufficient funds’. For the sake of convenience and clarity the para No.1 may be reproduced as under:-

1. That OPNo.1 issued 2 nos. post dated cheque for Rs.62250/- & Rs.51812/- dated 16.11.2015 to 04.12.2015. That on presentation both the cheques were dishonoured by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 8C, Chandigarh with the remarks insufficient funds.

4.       The complainant failed to explain the reasons which prevent him to file the present complaint within the limitation period. Thus, The aforementioned averments as made in para No.1 of the complaint, does not clarify as to how and for what reasons and under what circumstances, the cheques in question were issued by the opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant. However, legal notice dated 17.12.2015, issued by Shri Sudhir Singhal, Advocate on behalf of the complainant reveals that aforementioned cheques were given in favour of the complainant as security for the loan of Rs.60,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. Further it is mentioned that the complainant has been allotted two plots of 2500 & 2083 sq. ft., but it is not mentioned in the legal notice as to when and where the said plots were allotted. Further dimensions of the plot as well as the category also do not find mentioned in the legal notice. No documentary evidence, pertaining to the alleged allotment of plots in favour of the complainant by OP No.1 has been placed on record. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the complainant can be said to be having the relationship of consumer and service provider with the OP No.1.   

b.       Regarding the filing of the present complaint within the limitation period, admittedly, the issue pertains to the year 2015, and thus the present complaint has been hopelessly time barred, being filed with an inordinate delay of more than 5 years.

4.                  No reasonable reason/justifiable cause has been furnished which prevented the complainant to file the complaint within the prescribed period. Mere seeking of condonation of delay, which is not duly corroborated and substantiated by any cogent and credible documentary evidence, is of no avail to the complainant. The last plea taken by the complainant that OPs have not responded to the letters is also of no avail to him in view of the well settled legal proposition that the period of limitation is not liable to be extended on the basis of exchange of letters between the parties. In this regard, we may safely rely upon the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal forum Delhi in 1^st appeal No.460 of 2010 titled as “ Delhi Development Authority Versus Pawan Sethi” wherein it has been held as under;

Section 24A-Limitation- Held-It is well established that the exchange of letters between the parties does not extend the period of limitation under the Act.

                     The Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Delhi, while deciding the case supra, has relied upon several case law which may be mentioned as under:-

1.      Ashok Kumar Sainia vs. Delhi Development Authority, FA No. 183/2007 decided on 21.03.2013 by the National Commission.
2.     Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. K.C. Aggarwal, IV (2013) CPJ 567 (NC)
3. Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. decided on 16.07.2013.
4. Harbhjan Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. 1 (2015) CPJ 672 (NC) wherein the National Commission took the similar view. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under;

Mere writing of letters to the respondent authority and waiting for reply for unduly long time would not extend the period of limitation. It is well settled position of law that the requirement of limitation under Section 24A(1) is a mandatory requirement and the Consumer Forum  shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years of date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(V)              State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009(2) CLT Page 541,decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held as under;

                               “Limitation –Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptor 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-As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing- if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality-The aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set-aside.

                     “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A-Limitation-Cause of Action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 05.05.1997-Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown-The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise-complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such-The appeal allowed-The orders of Foras below liable to be set-aside and complaint dismissed as time-barred”

          Apart from above, the Hon’ble Apex Court decided the case titled as Kandimalla Rahavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) on similar lines wherein it is held as under;

Limitation-Time Barred-Insurance Claim-Fire in tobacco godown took place on 22/23 March, 1988-Intimation to Bank in whose favour stock hypothecated, given on 23 March itself-Insurance Company informed in November, 1992-Period of limitation expired-Section 24A-Consumer Protection Act bars Consumer For a from admitting complaint after two years from date of cause of action-Complaint before Consumer Forum filed in October 1997, dismissed as time-barred-Civil appeal filed-Contention, denial of insurance company in honouring claim received in Marc-Limitation period will commence from the date-Contention not acceptable-Cause of action not continuous till denial of claim-Filing of claim by Bank in 1988 in no way helped complainant-Insurance Company’s reply to legal notice in March, 1996, declining to issue claim forms, not resulted in extending limitation period. Complaint filed in 1997, without application of condonation of delay manifestly barred by limitation-Dismissal of complaint justified-No interference requires in appeal.

 5.                 In view of the aforementioned factual as well as legal position it may, safely, be concluded that the present complaint has been preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Further, as discussed above, the complainant has also failed to establish that he falls under the category of consumer, and thus the present complaint is hereby dismissed in limini with liberty to the complainant to approach the competent authority/court if he is so advised. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 31.05.2021

 

Dr.Sushma Garg        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                    Member                        Member                              President

 

Note:            Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                   (Satpal)

                                                        President