RAJENDRA PRASAD TRIPATHI vs MANAGER , BRANCH MANAGER , Sushil Vishwakarma , Ram Pramod Payasi

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1009 of 2012 - Rajendra Prasad Tripathi Vs. Manager, Agarwal Motors by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was affirmed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased tractor/trolley from OP No. 1/respondent No.1 and tractor/trolley were financed by respondent No. 4 / OP No. 4. Petitioner paid Rs.50,000/- on 15.9.2003, Rs.50,000/- on 10.11.2003 and Rs.50,000/- on 22.1.2004 to OP Nos. 2 and 3/Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but that amount was not adjusted against the loan. It was further alleged that trolley and documents for registration of trolley were not given to the petitioner. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint in 2008 with a prayer for direction to OP to give possession of trolley and documents of trolley along with compensation. OP No. 4 contested complaint and submitted that complaint is time barred; hence, complaint be dismissed. Complaint was dismissed against the OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by learned District Forum on 14.11.2008, as the petitioner did not deposit fees. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as time barred. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard authorized representative of the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

AUTHORIZED representative of the petitioner submitted that petitioner made complaints to the Respondent No. 4 in 2004 and in 2005, even then, trolley and its documents were not given to him and in such circumstances, in spite of deficiency on the part of respondent, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that, as per invoice of tractor/ trolley, tractor/trolley was purchased by the petitioner on 8.8.2004, whereas complaint regarding non-delivery of trolley and registration certificate has been filed on 23.1.2008, which is clearly time barred. As per complaint, money was given by the petitioner to OP Nos. 2 and 3 for depositing in the account in the year 2003 and 2004, which has not been deposited in the account, as per complaint. Complaint ought to have been filed within a period of 2 years from the cause of action. As the complaint has been filed almost after 3 1/2 years without any application under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint as time barred and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.