Madan Lal Suryavanshi vs Shahrukh Pasi

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 734 of 2009 - Madan Lal Suryavanshi Vs. Shahrukh Pasi & Ors., by which while dismissing the appeal, order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint was upheld.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner purchased a Tata Tempo in the year 2005 and got it financed from opposite party No.4 -ICICI Bank. Vehicle was taken away by some anti -social elements on 04.02.2006 and FIR was lodged. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum on 16.12.2008. Opposite parties resisted complaint and submitted that the complaint is time barred and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation as well on merits. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed. Heard petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint on the ground of limitation as petitioner is a layman and was not aware of limitation for filing the complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of order clearly reveals that as per allegations in the complaint, vehicle was stolen on 04.02.2006; whereas complaint was filed on 16.12.2008, meaning thereby complaint was filed after two years and ten months, whereas, complaint was to be filed within a period of two years. Complainant has not filed any application under Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay in filing complaint. In such circumstances, learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint and order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no orders as to costs.