1.       Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04/10/2017 passed by District Forum, Jalna  in C.C.No. 31/2017 the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2.     The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opponent in complaint No.31/2017 before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’ and ‘opponent’ as per their status in the complaint and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is referred to as ‘District Forum’ for the sake of convenience.

3.       It is the case of complainant that he approached opponent No.1 Proprietor Yash Motors, Parbhani for purchase of Maruti Suzuki Omni van and the quotation was given to him by opponent No.2(authorised dealer). The complainant paid Rs.5000/- towards booking amount on 30/05/2013 and paid Rs.1,95,000/- on 31/05/2013 and also deposited cheque of Rs.56,934/-.  The opponent No.2 informed complainant that after total repayment , he will get documents through opponent No.3. He believed in the words of opponent No.2. He further paid the amount of Rs.56,934/- on 14/06/2013 which was remained to be paid. He has also paid Rs.57,780/- for insurance with opponent No.2. The opponent No.2 gave documents to complainant on 26/06/2013. Complainant further approached RTO office for registration of vehicle on 28/06/2013. At that time he came to know that the vehicle was of 2011 make. The opponents have cheated him by giving quotation of model 2013.  He issued legal notice to opponents. However , the opponents did not give reply to said notice. The complainant filed FIR bearing No.91/2014 against the opponents U/s 46, 420, 470, 427, 323,34 of IPC.  The complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Parbhani seeking directions to give him 2013 model Omni vehicle or to pay Rs.3,14,714/- to him, which he has paid. He also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

4)       The opponent remained absent . The complaint was proceeded exparte against the opponents.

5.       The District Forum , Jalna dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation provided U/s 24A of Consumer Protection Act .  The District Forum opined that the complaint is not filed within two years of the alleged cause of action to complainant. It is observed that complainant pleaded that he came to know that he is deceived by opponent by providing 2011 model instead of 2013 model on 28/06/2013 and the complaint is not filed within two year from the date of cause of action.

6.       Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of District Forum the complainant has filed this appeal on the ground that the complainant has not filed complaint within stipulated period of limitation. However, the District Forum failed to consider that the legal notice was issued to opponents on 26/07/2013.  On 16/09/2013 the respondents gave reply to complainant and denied to provide services. This is the actual date of cause of action to file the complaint. From that date the complaint is well within the limitation period. The District Forum erred in appreciating facts in that perspective and delivered the judgment and order erroneously, which deserves to be dismissed in allowing this appeal.

7.       Heard Adv.Amol Vasmatkar for appellant/complainant.  The appeal is proceeded exparte as the opponents failed to appear inspite of service of notice to them.

8.       From  the submissions of parties, following  points arise for our consideration. We have noted  them along with findings against it for the reasons to follow.

Points                                                                  Answers

(i)  Whether the complainant established

     deficiency in service on the part of opponents ? -..In negative.

(ii)  Whether there requires interference in

      the judgement and Order of the Dist.

      Forum?                                                               ..In negative

(iii)  What order?                                                   -   As per final order

REASONING

9.       Ld.Adv.Amol Vasmatkar argued for the complainant that though it is observed by the Forum below that the complainant has not filed complaint within stipulated period of limitation. However , the District Forum failed to consider that the legal notice was issued to opponents on 26/07/2013.  On 16/09/2013 the respondents replied to complainant and denied to provide services. This is the actual date of cause of action to complainant. From the date of reply of opponent, the complaint is well within the limitation period. The District Forum erred in appreciating facts in proper perspective. Hence said order of District Forum needs to be set aside.

10.     The opponents though served with he notice remained absent. Therefore, the appeal is decided on their absence.

11.     It reveals from the record that initially complaint No.90/2015 filed before District Forum Parbhani on 13/02/2017.  The President, District Forum Parbhani on 12/08/2016 passed the judgment and order and directed opponents 1 to 3 to deliver 2013 model of Omni vehicle to complainant or to pay Rs.3,14,714/- paid by complainant within 9% interest from 31/05/2013. However, the other Member differed with the judgment of President of the said Forum and passed the order of dismissal of complaint, on the ground of limitation. The appeal was filed before this Commission bearing FA/901/2016. This Commission noticed that differing judgments are passed by President and Member of District Forum Parbhani, this Commission on 21/12/2016 referred it to President, District Forum Jalna with directions, for giving opinion by herself or through any Member. The District Forum Jalna vide impugned order dt.04/10/2017 has dismissed the complaint observing that the complaint is filed beyond limitation period.

12)     The complainant has come with a case that he is cheated by opponents by not providing 2013 model of Omni and giving 2011 model and receiving Rs.3,14,714/- in May, June 2013.  It reveals that the complainant has filed FIR 91/2014 under various sections of IPC. Thus, the complainant himself is claiming, he has been deceived by opponent. Hence it will not be desirable to decide the case summarily. However , it reveals that the District Forum Jalna has not gone into these details, as the point of limitation goes to the root of the case for entitlement of relief.

13)     While dismissing consumer complaint the District Forum Jalna has observed that the complainant pleaded that he has came to knowledge on 28/06/2013 that he is cheated in the matter which gives cause of action to complaint. Therefore within two years of the cause of action, the complainant was required to file complaint.  Apparently, it reveals that complainant has filed complaint beyond two years of stipulated period of limitation for filing of complaint for the alleged cause of action and also he has not filed application to condone the delay occurred in filing of complaint which is the statutory requirement. Hence there appears no infirmity in the order of District Forum in dismissing the complaint by majority opinion.  

14)     The cause of action arose on 28/06/2013, the complaint was supposed to be filed within two years i.e. on or before 27/06/2015. However, it is filed vide consumer complaint No.90/2015 on 27/08/2015 before District Forum, Parbhani in first instance. Apparently, there is 59 days delay.  There is also no application filed for condonation of delay. No reason given for delay. Hence we are of the opinion that the District Forum rightly concluded that the complaint is not filed within limitation. Hence there requires no interference. Hence we answer the point accordingly and pass the following order. 

                                       O  R  D E R

1.       Appeal is dismissed.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copy of the judgment be issued to both the parties.