BHUPENDRA C. MEHTA vs SHANTABEN AMBALAL PATEL

THIS appeal by the original complainant in Complaint No. 35 of 1994 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharuch (District Forum for short) is directed against the judgment and order dated January 27, 1995 passed by the said District Forum dismissing his complaint.

THE case of the appellant is as follows: He had placed order for purchasing 500 shares of Kirloskar Leasing and Finance Company (Shares for short) with respondents on August 27, 1990 and paid an amount of Rs. 8,333/- including brokerage of Rs. 83/-. It is stated that the respondents are partners of a firm in the name of Neelam Investment Company carrying on busi ness at Bharuch. According to the appellant, the respondents had agreed to deliver the shares on September 19, 1990. THE shares were, however, delivered on November 28, 1990. It is submitted that had the shares been delivered as agreed, the appellant would have been entitled to dividend payable on the shares and allotment of right shares. THEre was, therefore, deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. It is submitted that had the respondents delivered the shares within time, he would have made profit of Rs. 41,000/-. On the above grounds, the appellant filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 41,000/- with interest and cost from the respondents. The respondents resisted the complaint and mainly contended that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the transaction being commercial transaction, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

The District Forum, by its impugned judgment and order held that the appellant could have filed complaint or taken legal action within three years from September 19, 1990, the date on which the respondents are alleged to have agreed to deliver the shares. The complaint, was, however, filed on January 7, 1994. The complaint was, therefore, barred by limitation. The District Forum, however, rejected the respondent''s contention that the transaction of purchase of shares was a commercial transaction and, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the result, the District Forum dismissed the appellant''s complaint with no order as to costs.

THE averments made in the complaint make it clear that according to the appellant the respondent had agreed to deliver the shares on September 19, 1990. THEy however, delivered them on November 18, 1990. It is the case of the appellant that due to late delivery of shares he has suffered loss of Rs. 41,000/-. Now, if the shares were to be delivered on September 19, 1990, cause of action, if any, for recovery of compensation or damages on account of non-delivery of shares on that date would, as rightly held by the District Forum, arise on September 19, 1990. THE complainant, therefore, ought to have filed the complaint within three years, the period prescribed by the Limitation Act from the date the cause of action arose. In other words, to ; bring his claim within the period of limitation, the appellant ought to have filed the complaint on or before September 18, 1993. He, however, filed the complaint on January 7, 1994. THE claim j for recovery of damages or loss of dividend is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the appellant''s claim would be barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as the complaint was not filed within two years from the date the cause of action arose. It is not necessary for us to go into this question since even if the period of limitation is computed in accordance with the Limitation Act, the complaint would be barred by limitation. If Section 24A is applied, it would have been barred on September 19, 1992. Under the circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the District Forum and dismiss this appeal with cost which is quantified at Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.