H.C.L.LIMITED vs KAMIL BHAI

THIS is a revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Moradabad dated 6.12.1996 passed in Case No. 468 of 1994, Kamil Bhai & Ors. v. HCL Limited. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :

THE complainant Kamil Bhai preferred a complaint in the Consumer Forum, Moradabad alleging that on 3.1.1991 he had paid a sum of Rs. 74,000/- by means of a cheque to the opposite party M/s. HCL Limited, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 for purchase of a personal computer. It was agreed by the opposite party that the computer would be delivered by the opposite parties within 15 days but delivery of the computer was not given on one pretext or the other. A notice was given to the opposite parties to make the delivery but they failed to do so. For failure in supplying the computer, inspite of having paid cost of the same, the computer was not delivered even after more than 3 years. He, therefore, claimed refund of the amount of Rs. 74,000/- alongwith 15% interest alongwith a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- which occurred to him because of the on-delivery of the computer for more than three years. He also opted for computer with accessories to be made available to him in lieu of the amount of Rs. 74,000/- paid by him. In the District Consumer Forum a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It was stated that the complaint dated 13.5.1994 was filed after expiry of more than 3 years from the date of payment and under the Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing the complaint is two years. THErefore the complaint is barred by limitation. The District Consumer Forum heard the preliminarty objection and held that the period of limitation still runs when the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did not comply with the notice given in the last letter dated 7.4.1994. It was sent by registered post and might have been received within a reasonable time of 7 days. Consumer Forum thus held that complaint filed on 13.5.1994 is not barred by time. The revision has been filed against this order.

In the revision petition before this Commission it has been stated that the learned District Consumer Forum failed to appreciate that the complaint has been filed after expiry of more than 3 years from the date of alleged payment and therefore committed material irregularity. The learned Forum erred in not considering the fact that the complainant paid the amount on 3.1.1991 to the revisionist and it expected the delivery of the computer within 15 days. Two years'' period had expired in the month of January, 1993 while the complaint was filed on 13.5.1994.

WE have gone through the evidence on record. On record are the two registered letters written by the complainant to opposite parties 2 and 3 in which opposite parties have been asked to settle the matter. It was clearly written in the letter that an amount of Rs. 74,000/- was paid on 3.1.1991 through a cheque and the amount was debited against him on 9.1.1991. The receipts of the registered letters are also on record. It is not denied that the advance payment was made on 3,1.1991. The registered letters referred to above are also not denied. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for revisionist Mr. V.P. Sharma and learned Counsel for the opposite parties Mr. Arun Tandon. The learned Counsel for revisionist '' has drawn our attention towards the order of the National Commission in Petition No. 62 of 1992, Indu Video Films (P) Limited v. Punjab National Bank& Ors. It was held by the Hon''ble National Commission that the claim being a stale one, cannot be entertained under Consumer Protection Act. Even the writing of letters or notices subsequent to the date of cause of action had arisen, does not give a fresh cause of action to the complainant. Though the Limitation Act has not been specifically made applicable to the Consumer Protection Act, the Forum should not entertain the stale claim.

WE have gone through the above ruling. It is worth-noting that Section 24(a) in regard to limitation was subsequently added in the Consumer Protection Act and it provides that the claims have to be filed within two years. The National Commission in the case N.M. Bhashyam v. Prabhakar Vasudev Joshi, I (1996) CPJ 337 (NC)=1996(1) CPR 155, dealt with in detail about the accrual of cause of action. In this case it has been held that the cause of action did not arise on execution of two agreements, but when the appellant insisted in 1993 for a fresh agreement, the complainant rightly held that the opposite party is not going to give service of the construction and handing over possession of flat even after receiving payment of Rs. 5,000/- on 31.3.1993 and Rs. 10,000/- on 25.5.1993. Thus the complaint is within the limitation. A study of above two rulings indicates that subsequent ruling has come after Section 24(a) was added to the Consumer Protection Act. In the instant case initial cause of action arose on 3.1.1991 when the payment was made and the delivery was not done as stipulated. It continued even on 7.4.1994 when the opposite parties were sent registered letters which they received subsequently. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the claim is not time barred and we need not interfere with the order dated 6.12.1996 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Moradabad. The revision is therefore liable to be dismissed. ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. The District Forum-II, Moradabad will proceed with the hearing of the complaint as per law. Parties to appear there on 28.5.1999. Revision Petition dismissed. _________________