S. ELHENCE vs RAGHOMAL NAHAR SINGH (P) LTD.

-THE complainant in Case No. 77/89 on the file of the District Forum, Dehradun is the revision petitioner.

ON March 2, 1987 the complainant had placed an order with the Opposite Party No. 1 respondent - herein for the supply of 50 bags of "ordinary portland cement" and on payment of the cost demanded for the same he was issued a bill which specifically stated that what was sold thereunder to the complainant was "ordinary portland cement". The cement was delivered to him on the same day. The complainant used a substantial quantity of the said cement for the work of ''grouting'' in a building which was being newly constructed by him. To his utter disappointment it was found that the cement used by him was not setting properly. That prompted him to get the balance quantity of the cement left with him examined. ON such examination it was found that what was supplied to him by the Opposite Party No.1was not "ordinary portland cement" suitable for ''grouting'' etc. in house construction but an inferior variety of cement called ''slag'' cement. Though he immediately took up the matter with the Opposite Party No. 1, he did not get any favourable response from him. Hence a complaint was filed by him before the District Forum, Dehradun claiming compensation for the "defect" in the goods supplied to him and also for the inconvenience caused to him by reason of the supply of such inferior quality of cement. After hearing both sides, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the cement supplied to the complainant was of inferior quality and it was thus "defective". The District Forum awarded to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- besides Rs. 300/- by way of costs. On the matter being taken up in appeal by the Opposite Party No. 1 - M/s. Ragho Mal Nahar Singh (P) Ltd., Dehradun before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum in its finding that the cement supplied to the complainant was of inferior quality and hence it suffered from a ''defect''. But the State Commission took the view that since the transaction of sale which gave rise to the cause of action took place on March 2, 1987, prior to the date of coming into force of Chapter III of the Consumer Protection Act namely, July 1, 1987, the complainant was not entitled to seek any relief before the Redressal Forums constituted under the Act. For reaching this conclusion the State Commission has given the following reasoning: "Chapter III of Consumer Protection Act has been enforced in the State of Uttar Pradesh (along with other States) from 1-7-1987. Therefore this Act takes effect from 1.7.1987 and matters prior to this date on account of not being covered do not fall under jurisdiction of the District Forum/State Commission". On this technical view the State Commission allowed the appeal of the 1st respondent herein, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. Hence this revision petition by the complainant

After hearing both sides, we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint on the aforesaid ground cannot be sustained in law and that this revision petition has to be allowed.

THERE is nothing in Chapter III of the Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Redressal Forums constituted under its provisions to the adjudication of only disputes in respect of which the cause of action arose subsequent to the coming into force of the said Chapter. What has been done by the provisions of the said Chapter is to create a three tier remedial machinery for inexpensive and expeditious redressal of consumer grievances by way of an alternative to the ordinary process of instituting actions before the Civil Court with all its attendant heavy cost and enormous delay. It is manifest that the intention of Parliament in enacting Chapter III is that an aggrieved consumer should be in a position to seek redressal before the newly set up statutory forums for adjudication of all consumer disputes the cause of action in respect of which as on the date of approaching the Forum would be a subsisting and enforceable one under the law of limitation, if the matter were to be adjudicated by a Civil Court. Hence the only test to be applied is whether as on the date when a consumer dispute is filed before a Forum constituted under the Act, the cause of action was alive and subsisting under the general law of limitation. So long as the cause of action is not barred under the general law of limitation as on the date of institution of the consumer dispute before the statutory redressal Forum, the mere fact that the date of accrual of the cause of action was prior to the date of coming into force of Chapter III is totally irrelevant and it will not operate to deprive the aggrieved consumer of his right under the Act to seek relief before the statutory redressal Forum. In other words, the only requirement to be satisfied is that as on the date when the consumer dispute is filed before a redressal Forum, the cause of action should not have become time barred under the law of the limitation. The view taken by the State Commission that the Act takes effect from July 1, 1987 and matters prior to this date do not fall under the jurisdiction of the District Forum/State Commission is thus erroneous and untenable. The State Commission had acted illegally and with material irregularity in setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint petition on the aforesaid ground.

THE finding of fact recorded by the District Forum is that what the complainant had ordered and paid for was "ordinary portland cement" while what was actually supplied to him was cement of inferior quality namely, ''slag'' cement, and that the complainant had been put to loss and inconvenience as a result of such "defect" in the goods supplied to him have been confirmed by the State Commission. We see no reason to interfere with the said conclusion of fact In the light of the foregoing discussion, we allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order passed by the District Forum allowing a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to the complainant and awarding Rs. 300/- by way of costs. , We direct the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs. 300/- to the revision petitioner towards the expenses incurred by him in prosecuting this revision petition. Revision allowed.