State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Inderjeet Singh vs The Authorized Officer, Fortune Equity ... on 5 June, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.938 of 2014
Date of institution : 03.07.2014
Date of decision : 05.06.2015
Mr. Inderjeet Singh s/o Late Shri Rattan Singh s/o LateShri Dyal
Singh, resident of House No.138, Street No.1, Mohalla Nanak Sar,
New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana (Punjab) Mobile No.09592949288.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
The Authorized Officer, Fortune Equity Brokers (India) Limited,
having its Head Office at Mumbai and its Service Branch Office at
SCO-3, First Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Opposite New Court,
Ludhiana.
........Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order dated
17.6.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Inderjeet Singh (In Person). JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/complainant, Inderjeet Singh, has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 17.6.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the application filed by him under First Appeal No.938 of 2014 2 Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") for condoning the delay in filing the complaint was dismissed.
2. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, the complainant applied for franchisee to the opposite party in the year 2009-2010, as per the terms and conditions. He entered into an Agreement through its authorized officer on 22.9.2009 and deposited Rs.1,00,000/-, as security. He has not been provided the franchisee or agency code; which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He approached its authorized officer at Ludhiana and made request to provide the same or to return his security deposit but he kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. He has been cheated by the opposite party by collecting that security amount. He is entitled to receive the compensation for deficiency in service and he prayed for issuance of direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,60,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. On account of the wrong advice given by the Advocate, he filed the complaint before the District Forum, Chandigarh, which was registered as CC No.511 of 2010. On the advice of the District Forum that it had no territorial jurisdiction, the same was withdrawn by him and thereafter fresh complaint was filed before the District Forum, Ludhiana and for condoning the delay in filing the same, he moved an application under Section 24-A of the Act. He averred therein that he was not conversant with the law proceedings and wrong advice had been given by the Advocate that there is provision in the law to entertain the complaint even after three years if the party has committed fraud. The delay was neither wilful nor First Appeal No.938 of 2014 3 intentional. The averments made in the application were not found sufficient by the District Forum for condoning the delay and, as such, the same was dismissed, vide aforesaid order.
3. The appellant/complainant appeared before us in person and made his submissions. He submitted that the remedy provided under the Act is an additional remedy and keeping in view that legal provision the delay in filing the complaint should have been condoned. It was on account of the wrong advice given by the Advocate that he filed the complaint earlier before the District Forum and had to withdraw the same from that place for want of territorial jurisdiction. Sufficient cause was made out by him for condoning the delay and, as such, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments:-
i) S.C. & NATIONAL COMMISSION CONSUMER LAW
CASES (2005-2008) 746 (Venkatesh & Ors. v.
Vishwanath & Ors.); and
ii) S.C. & NATIONAL COMMISSION CONSUMER LAW
CASES (2005-2008) 298 (D.K. Gandhi v. M. Mathias).
4. None of these judgments deals with the law regarding limitation. Neither any such question regarding the limitation was raised nor was answered. We fail to understand how the ratio of these judgments helps the complainant in the present appeal, which is directed against the order, vide which his application for condoning the delay in filing the complaint was dismissed. First Appeal No.938 of 2014 4
5. The complainant himself has alleged in the complaint that the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as security, was deposited by him with the opposite party on 16.10.2009. He wants the refund of that amount on the ground that the franchisee or agency code was not provided to him. As is apparent from the allegations made in the complaint, he had immediately approached the opposite party for that purpose after the deposit of the security and had come to know that the same was not being provided. Thus, the cause of action to file the complaint accrued to him on 16.10.2009. As is clear from the copy of the order dated 4.10.2011, passed by District Forum, Chandigarh, firstly the complaint was filed by him before that District Forum in the year 2010 and was withdrawn with permission to file the fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate Forum, on 4.10.2011. Thereafter he filed the complaint before that District Forum on 4.6.2014 i.e. after the expiry of more than two years of the withdrawal of the first complaint from District Forum, Chandigarh. He has not stated any reason in the application explaining that delay. The reason, so disclosed in the application, is only to the effect that it was on the wrong advice of the Advocate that he filed the complaint before the District Forum, Chandigarh. If it was so, at least he was required to explain the delay in not filing the complaint within two years of the withdrawal of the first complaint. It was correctly concluded by the District Forum that he has failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and we do not find any infirmity in that finding. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed; being without any merit.
First Appeal No.938 of 2014 5
6. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER June 05, 2015 Bansal