CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.640/2010

SH. RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA

S/O LATE SH. GANGA RAM SHARMA                          

R/O 1406, NEW JAI BHARAT SOCIETY,

CGHS, SCTOR-4, PLOT NO.5, DWARKA,

NEW DELHI-110014

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                             

Vs.

BRANCH MANAGER,

WWICS LTD.

SAVITRI CINEMA, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,

DLF CENTRE, GREATER KAILASH-II,

NEW DLEHI-110048

                                  …………..RESPONDENT

                                 Date of Order:21.1.2019

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav - President

The case of the complainant is that in the month of August 1999, he approached OP at their office in Greater Kailash, New Delhi to inquire about the process for immigration to Canada.  The officials of OP assured the complainant that it would be easy for them to emigrate and settle him permanently in Canada and for the aforesaid service, OP charged a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-.  However, OP was not able to organize the complainant’s interview with Canadian High Commission even after the lapse of a long time hence the complainant asked for refund of the money.  OP refused to refund amount and vide email dated 06.09.2008, OP offered to pay a sum of Rs.26,500/-.  Since the same was arbitrary hence the complainant refused to accept the same.  The complainant had been in constant communication with OP through telephone calls but OP has paid no attention to the concern of the complainant.  The complainant served a letter dated 25.09.2009 by hand in the office of OP and the same also sent by registered post and was duly received by OP on 30.09.2009.  The complainant also made a complaint before EOW on 01.04.2010.  It is submitted that OP is indulged in unethical business practice. 

It is submitted that the cause of action firstly arose when the complainant approached OP for the aforesaid service and OP assured the complainant for the same.  The cause of action arose on each and every occasions when the complainant approached OP.  The cause of action further arose on 06.09.2009 when OP offered to refund Rs.26,500/- in arbitrary manner.  The cause of action arose when the complainant served letter dated 25.09.2009 to OP and requested for refund of the money.  The cause of action is continuing.

It is prayed that OP be directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also pay Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses.

OP in its reply submitted that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  It is submitted that the complainant entered into an agreement with OP on 19.08.1999 and his case was filed before Canadian High Commission on 18.10.2000.  The application/Visa request of the complainant was rejected on 27.03.2006 due to non attending of interview.  The present complaint has been filed on or about 19.11.2010 thus the same is hopelessly barred by limitation.  It is submitted that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.20,800/.- to WWICS Canada Inc. and the same has not been made a party hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  It is submitted that the case of the complainant got rejected due to non attending of interview, however, a matter of goodwill gesture vide email dated 06.09.2008, a sum of Rs.26,500/- was approved out of total amount of Rs.56,500/- paid by the complainant to OP.  It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed t the complaint be dismissed.

We have gone through the case file carefully.

It is admitted fact that OP offered to refund a sum of Rs.26,500/- to the complainant vide email dated 06.09.2008, however, the complainant refused to accept the same.  So cause of action for all practical purposes arose on 06.09.2008.  However, the present complaint has been filed on 06.12.2010 which is barred by limitation. 

The complainant moved an application for condonation of delay on 01.04.2013.  It is stated in the application that though there was no delay in filing the complaint, however, if this forum feels that there was any delay in filing the complaint, the delay be condoned on the ground that the complaint has been filed by the complainant in individual capacity who being a layman, has no legal knowledge therefore he is unable to understand the technicality.  The application is opposed by OP on the ground that the application for condonation of delay has been filed after three years and no ground has been disclosed in the application for condonation of delay.

In fact there is a delay of almost three months in filing the present complaint.  The only ground stated by the complainant for condonation of delay is that “the complaint has been by the complainant in individual capacity and who being a layman, has no legal knowledge therefore he is unable to understand the technicality”.   

It is significant to note that the complainant is not a layman as he has applied for immigration to Canada and he filed the present complaint through his advocate.  In fact we find no ground for condonation of delay as the complainant has not given any justification for condonation of delay

Simply because of complainant has sent a letter on 25.09.2009 by hand for refund of the amount does not mean that the cause of action was continuing. 

It is settled law that any kind of communication would not extend the period of limitation.  Reference in this regard is placed on the case of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs Satinder Pal Singh - II (2018) CPJ 245(NC) – in that case the Hon’ble National Commission relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India Vs M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries  (I), II (2009) SLT 793=II (2009) CPJ 29(SC) =AIR 2009 SC 2210 wherein it has been held that:-

“8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it 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 the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within 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.”

Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

                          (H.C. SURI)                                                           (A.S. YADAV)

                          MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT