State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs Shahrukh Pasi on 29 August, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 29.8.2013 First Appeal 734/2009 (Arising out of the order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the District Forum(North), Tis Hazari, Delhi in complaint case No. 845/2008) Madan Lal Suryavanshi S/o Late Sh.Phool Singh Suryavanshi, R/o 10972/5-A (Old) 139/5-A (New), Gali No.5-6, Main Road, W.E.A. Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 .........APPELLANT VS 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Sh. Shahrukh Pasi, Authorized Dealer, M/s Pascos, Off: 1/23-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-2 M/s Tata Motors Ltd., 11/3, Main Mathura Road, Badarpur, Delhi Through its authorized person Avtar Singh Johar, Johar Motors (Tata Motors Authorized Service Station), Main Road Badarpur, New Delhi-44 ICICI Bank Ltd., Through its Commercial Manager(Vehicles), Block E-1, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-55 The Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2 & 3 Central Market, 1st Floor, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-26 Mukesh Sethja Prop. Of Mukesh Setia & Co., 322, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi-9 Dr. S.N. Gupta, CMO, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Main Rohtak Road, Near P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-26 ....RESPONDENTS CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Salma Noor
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT
1. The brief facts of the care are that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the seven OPs making different allegations against them with regard to purchase of a car from OP No.1 & 2 alleging deficiency against them praying that OP No.1 to 6 be directed to pay him compensation of an amount of Rs.19,91,325/- towards the mental agony and physical and financial loss and Pass any other order, which the Forum deems fit in his favour
2. The OP No.1,2 & 7 opposed the claim and filed the Written Statements.
3. The District Forum, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint of the complainant, as been filed beyond the prescribed limitation.
2. That is what brings the Appellant/complainant in appeal before this Commission.
3. We have heard the appellant in person and Shri P.K. Srivastava, Counsel for respondent No.1, Shri Ajay Malhotra, Counsel for respondent No.2, Ms. Ritika Bhutani, Counsel for respondent No.4, Ms. Monika, Proxy counsel for respondent No.5, and Shri R.C. Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.7 in this appeal
4. It may be seen from the pleadings in the complaint that when the cause of action arose to file the complaint is not given in the complaint. The last grouse out of the various incidents giving rise to cause of action pleaded in the complaint is of theft dated 4th Feb., 2006. Thus, the complaint to be within limitation could or should have been filed by or before 3.2.2008, while the complainant filed the complaint on 16.12.2008. The complainant also did not file any application for condonation of delay. The complaint, therefore, having been filed beyond two years of the arising of the cause of action, was certainly not filed within the prescribed limitation, and the District Forum was well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint being time barred.
5. The appeal has therefore,no force, and is accordingly dismissed.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Arya