State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Tulsi Ram vs Sh. Shyam Sunder Chauhan & Ors. on 21 May, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.28/2015
Date of Presentation: 20.03.2015
Date of Decision: 21.05.2015
................................................................................
Tulsi Ram, son of Shri Nant Ram,
Resident of Village & Post Office Mairamaseet,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
(1) Shyam Sunder Chauhan, son of Shri Ram Adhar Chauhan,
Resident of Village Sekhpur, Post Office Badopur,
District Azamgarh, U.P.
(2) Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Sundernagar,
District Mandi, H.P.
(3) Deputy Director (Agriculture),
Jawahar Nagar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
... Respondents.
.....................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant: Ms. Priyanka Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: None.
For Respondent No.3: Ms. Manu Kalia, A.D.A.
................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the order dated 16.02.2015, of learned District Consumer 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Tulsi Ram Versus Shyam Sunder Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.28/2015) Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that in the month of June, 2008, by raising a loan of `7.00 lacs from respondent No.2, Manager, State Bank of India, Sundernagar, he wanted to raise a greenhouse on an area, measuring 1,000 Square Metres. Order was placed by him with respondent No.1 for erection of the polyhouse. Respondent No.1 agreed to construct the polyhouse at a cost of `3,84,000/- and the entire amount of money was paid to him, by respondent No.2. According to the appellant, the aforesaid amount of money was paid by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, without his consent and without his advice. It is also the case of the appellant that as a matter of fact, respondent No.1 did not carry out any work on the spot and, therefore, no amount of money ought to have been paid to him. Appellant further alleged that when respondent No.1 did not even start the work, he got a polyhouse, on an area, measuring 560 Square Metres constructed from M/s. Page 2 of 6
Tulsi Ram Versus Shyam Sunder Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.28/2015) Jain Irrigation Systems Limited, for which a sum of `92,820/- was paid by him and another sum of `3,84,000/- was transferred by respondent No.2. Appellant alleged that on account of non-construction of polyhouse by respondent No.1, he suffered huge loss. It is also alleged that on account of negligence on the part of respondents No.2 & 3, he had not been able to get the subsidy from the Government. With these allegations, appellant prayed for issuance of a direction to respondent No.1 to refund the amount of `3,84,000/- paid to him. He also prayed that respondents No.1 & 3 be directed to pay interest as accrued on the loan amount, respondent No.2 be directed to waive the interest and all the respondents be directed to pay `1.00 lac, by way of compensation for harassment, tension, torture etc. and be also directed to pay litigation expenses.
3. Complaint was contested by all the three respondents. Plea of limitation was raised by all of them. On merits, respondent No.1 stated that only a sum of `3,84,000/- had been paid, out of which a sum of `20,000/- had been taken as loan by the appellant, when his wife fell sick and he had no money to arrange for her treatment. It was stated that `62,496/- had Page 3 of 6 Tulsi Ram Versus Shyam Sunder Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.28/2015) been spent on the development of site for the polyhouse and material worth `4,22,496/- had been delivered to the appellant at the site on 04.05.2009 for the construction of polyhouse. It was stated that after receiving material on 04.05.2009, appellant gave instructions to the Bank not to release the remaining amount of money. It was denied that polyhouse was agreed to be erected at a cost of `3,84,000/-. It was stated that polyhouse was agreed to be erected at a cost of `6,30,000/-, against which only `3,84,000/- had been paid. Respondent No.2 stated that sanctioned loan amount had been transferred to the Savings Bank Account of the appellant and out of that amount, he got prepared a bank draft in the sum of `3,84,000/- in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 pleaded that it was, in no way, involved in the dispute between the appellant and respondents No.1 & 2.
4. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint, holding that the same is barred by time.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is the appellant's own case that when respondent No.1 did not start construction of work till December, 2009, he got the polyhouse constructed on Page 4 of 6 Tulsi Ram Versus Shyam Sunder Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.28/2015) an area, measuring 560 Square Metres from M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Limited. That means, the cause of action accrued to the appellant, per his own showing in December, 2009. Complaint was filed on 28.07.2012, or say more than two years after the cause of action accrued to him. Not only this, as per reply of respondent No.3, when the project of the appellant for construction of polyhouse, was approved, the work was assigned to M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Limited on 29.10.2009 and they completed the work on 15.05.2010. Complaint was not filed within two years, even after the polyhouse had been got constructed by the appellant from M/s. Jain Irrigation Systems Limited. Complaint was, thus, hopelessly barred by time, when filed.
7. Above stated position apart, respondent No.1 very categorically stated in his reply that material worth `4,22,496/- had been delivered at the site against invoice, Annexure OP1/A and that the appellant put his signature on this invoice, in token of having received the material. Appellant has not denied this plea. He did not file any rejoinder. In his affidavit, by way of evidence also, which he submitted after filing of reply by respondent No.1, he did not Page 5 of 6 Tulsi Ram Versus Shyam Sunder Chauhan & Ors.
(F.A. No.28/2015) deny this fact. That means, against the amount of `3,84,000/- paid to respondent No.1, appellant was supplied material worth `4,22,496/- and in addition, respondent No.1 alleges to have done the job of leveling the site at a cost of `62,496/-.
8. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
9. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 21, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 6 of 6