National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mrs. Anita Ahuja vs Banwari Lal Arora And Ors. on 14 July, 2003
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioners in these three Revision Petitions were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum where complainants had filed complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite Parties.
2. Undisputed facts are that the complainants had deposited stated amounts for earning interest with M/s. Ashoka Cotton Company, Abohar - a partnership involved in the trade of cotton. When the deposited amounts, on demand, were not returned, complainants filed complaints before the District Forum who after hearing the parties allowed the complainants vide its order dated 29.5.2001. Sixty eight appeals were filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties through a common single order dismissed these appeals with costs hence these Revision Petitions.
3. Revision Petition 563 relates to orders passed in 16 cases in appeal; Revision Petition 564 deals with order passed in 8 cases in Appeal and Revision Petition 565 deals with orders passed in 7 cases in appeal. Grounds are common hence we go on to pass a single order.
4. We heard the arguments and perused the material on record and find that the order of State Commission was passed on 22.5.2002 whereas these Revision Petition been filed on 24.2.2003, i.e., after a period of 277 days whereas the Commission has fixed period for filing a Revision Petition at 90 days. We have on record an application for condonation of delay. The only ground taken is that copy of the order was that copy of the order was received only on 24.12.2002 hence the delay.
5. We see from record that copy of the order was ready with the State Commission on 24.10.2002. Even when we find it difficult to accept that the copy of the order sent by the State in usual cause was not received by the Petitioners, yet the limitation cannot start from the date copy is collected. If copy of the order was prepared and ready on 24.10.2002 but collected on 18.12.2002 it does not help the Petitioner in extending the limitation. Copy was ready on 24.10.2002, they should have collected the copy at that time and filed R.P. within 90 days. It was not done. There is a delay of one month after this period, which has not been explained. An important right had accrued to the complainants which cannot be permitted to be tempered with on account of any negligence on the part of the Petitioner to file the Petition within period of limitation. These Petitioners cannot be entertained on barred by limitation.
6. We have also gone into the merits of the case. Main grounds taken by the Petitioners are that they did not deal in financial activities; matter involved complicated questions of law and facts hence outside the purview of Consumer Forums. The case should have been relegated to Civil Courts. There was no contract of service between the parties. On all these grounds orders of the both law or forums cannot be sustained.
7. It is not the case of Petitioners that they did not accept stated amounts Section 2(1)(0) defences 'Service' which reads as follows:-
This definition is inclusive of services like Banking, Financing etc. In the present case, deposits were being taken and interest was payable in these Deposits. We are unable to accept the plea of the Petitioners that these amounts were taken on 'Loan'. There is no document to substantiate such an arrangement. This definition read in the context of the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994 I SCC 243), we are left in no doubt that State Commission was quite correct in holding them to be a consumer and the complaint entertainable by a consumer forum. There is no doubt in our mind that service was being rendered to the complainants by the Petitioner's Partnership Firm. We do not find any complex question of law or fact involved in this case to be relegated to civil court. In any case Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (JT 2002 (6) SC) that there is no bar on consumer forum to decide even such type of cases.
8. In view of the above we see no merit in these Revision Petitions which are dismissed both as barred by limitation and on merits.
9. No order as to costs.