State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ghanshayam Sahu vs Manager, Umang Force, Thakkar Chamber & ... on 9 November, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
(A/11/2723)
Appeal No.442/2011
Instituted on : 09/08/2011
Ghanshyam Sahu,
S/o Shri Madan Lal Sahu,
R/o : Village Biranpur (Gandai),
Tehsil - Chuikhadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Manager,
Umang Force, Thakkar Chamber,
Power House, G.E.Road,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G)
2. Manager,
Shri Ram Transport Finance Limited.
Chauhan Tower, Near Maurya Talkies,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G) .... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri M.A.Ansari, for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 09/11/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.07/2011, whereby the said complaint, has been dismissed on the ground that // 2 // the same has been filed after prescribed period of two years and is barred by limitation. The application for condonation of delay, has also been dismissed by this order
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that previously a joint Complaint Case No.69/2009 was filed by the appellant herein, as well as one another person against the same respondents, for seeking compensation alleging deficiency in service on their part. The said complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 22/06/2010, on the ground that the same was not maintainable before the District Forum, on account of the fact that two separate complainants on two separate cause of actions, have filed a joint complaint without seeking any permission from the District Forum and so, the complaint was not maintainable. Apart from it, on merits also, the District Forum has also not found any substance in the complaint. That order was challenged by way of appeal No.458/2010 by the appellant herein, as well as one another person, who was also joint complainant in that complaint. That appeal was decided by this Commission vide order dated 18/11/2010 observing as follows in paragraph No.6 :-
"6. Therefore, this appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside. The appellants/complainants are granted liberty to file separate complaint on the basis of cause of action available to them. They may seek condonation of delay for the purpose of exclusion of the period, which was spent by them in contesting a joint complaint and in contesting this appeal by filing application before the District Forum.
// 3 // Appellants are to bear cost of this appeal of the respondents, which is quantified as Rs.500/- for each respondent. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of."
3. From the aforesaid observation, it is clear that the direction of this Commission in order dated 18/11/2010, was to the effect that the complainants were permitted to seek condonation of delay by moving applications for that purpose seeking exclusion of the period, which was spent by them in contesting a joint complaint before the District Forum and in contesting appeal before this Commission. In fact earlier Complaint Case No.69/2009 was dismissed by the District Forum on technical ground and therefore, permission was granted for filing separate complaints and for seeking condonation of delay. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides ample power to the District Forum for condoning the delay occurred in filing consumer complaint, if it is satisfied that delay was on account of some reasonable cause and has been properly explained. In the facts of the present case, everything was clear from the record of the District Forum, as well as from the order passed by this Commission on 18.11.2010 in Appeal No.458/2010 and therefore, no further explanation was required to be provided by the complainant/appellant. Complainant/appellant was merely required to file an application seeking condonation of delay. Such application was filed by the appellant.
// 4 //
4. The District Forum was not required to take super technical view, in the facts of the present case, particularly when all facts were abundantly clear and were apparent from the record of the District Forum itself and no further explanation was required to be sought from the complainant/appellant as this Commission in its order dated 18.11.2010 passed in Appeal No.458/2010 in paragraph No.6, has also clarified that the period spent by the complainants in contesting complaint before District Forum, as well as appeal before this Commission. may be condoned and may be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing complaint. It is worth mentioning that the original complaint, which was filed by the complainant along with one another person was well within limitation and the complainant was appearing before the District Forum as well as before this Commission as complainant/appellant up till 18.11.2010 when the appeal was decided by this Commission giving direction. Thereafter on 22.12.2010 i.e. after a period of one month & four days, fresh consumer complaint was again filed by the two complainants separately. Thus, it is clear that when both the persons were complainants in the original complaint also and contesting the same matter till 18.11.2010, then period from the date of filing of the original complaint till 18.11.2010, was required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing complaint and if we // 5 // exclude that period, then complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum in individual capacity appears within limitation.
5. In view of aforesaid, the order passed by the District Forum, is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. The delay occurred in filing consumer complaint before the District Forum, is hereby condoned. The District Forum is directed to decide the complaint case on its merits after granting reasonable opportunities of hearing to both parties, which will include opportunity for filing documents as well as affidavits. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 12.12.2011. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/11/2011 /11/2011