National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Surinder Mohan vs Municipal Corporation And Anr. on 1 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ136(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni Presiding Member
1. The appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a lease-hold booth in auction and he was allotted the same vide allotment letter dated 18.4.1992. The appellant raised the construction over the booth site but it is his case that the respondents have not provided the basic amenities in terms of Punjab Development and Regulation Act and Chandigarh Lease Holds Sites and Building Rules. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who dismissed it on two grounds, namely, that the complaint has been filed after 8 years of the allotment, hence barred by limitation as also on the ground that the d complainant has already made a representation before the Advisor to the Chief Administrator. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.
3. None is present on behalf of the respondent despite service, hence proceeded ex e parte.
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the allotment letter of the booth was issued way back in April, 1992 and complaint has been filed in 1999, Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, envisages filing a complaint within 2 years from the cause of action. No application for condonation of delay was filed before the State Commission and for that matter not even before us. The only plea taken before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there has been continued cause of action. On our specific query, not even a piece of evidence has been led before us to show that he has been exchanging correspondence with the respondent on the point at issue. In fact, we see nothing on record " as to what transpired between 1992 and 1999 when the complaint was filed? Law provides a limitation of two years from the date of cause of action. We are inclined to give some leeway to the consumer provided he is able to satisfy us that he had been guarding his interest. In this case, no such document or any other evidence has been produced before us. Hence we see no merit as far as this plea is concerned and complaint is clearly barred by limitation as rightly held by the State Commission.
5. As per memo of appeal filed before us, it is clear as per para 2 of the memo of appeal that the allotment of booth was cancelled by the respondent Estate Officer for non-payment of the premium. Appeal against which was filed before the Chief Administrator, which was dismissed in the year 1998. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was filed before the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh which as per the statement given before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant has also been dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator. It is an admitted position that in this revision petition along with other grounds, the question of lack of basic amenities was also agitated by the appellant.
6. There is no doubt that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides additional remedy for redressal of grievance of a consumer. But it does not envisage and this Commission has not been supporting 'forum-hopping' by a consumer. If a certain route has been adopted, of their own volition, by a consumer, then he has to pursue his remedy to the end from that agency. In this case admittedly, the order of the cancellation and lack of amenities was agitated before the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh who dismissed the appeal. Revision petition was filed against that order which also contained 'relief with regard to lack of amenities, which has also been dismissed. This Commission is not a revisional or appellate authority against the order passed by the Advisor to the Chief Administrator, U.T.. Chandigarh.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. . This judgment has no bearing with the present case for the simple reason that the cited judgment does not deal with the point of limitation as also the implication of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in the appeal filed before us, hence dismissed.