T.S. PRABHAKAR vs A.N.L. NARASIMHA RAO

ONE T.S. Prabhakar is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent herein filed a complaint initially against one Smt. T. Usha. It was alleged in the complaint that Smt. T. Usha is running a consumer goods scheme. The complainant joined as a member and according to the terms of the scheme, he has paid at the rate of Rs. 100.00 (ONE hundred only) per month for thirty (30) months, but Smt. T. Usha failed to deliver the washing machine. When the complainant raised hue and cry, Mr. T.S. Prabhakar, husband of Smt. T. Usha gave a cheque for Rs. 3,000.00 which also bounced. Initially, relief was claimed against Smt. T. Usha only and subsequently, Mr. T. Prabhakar was added as party.

IN answer to the complaint, Mr. T.S. Prabhakar mentioned that he has issued a cheque for repayment of the money he owes to the complainant and not towards the value of the washing machine. Two preliminary issues were framed i.e., (i) Whether the complaint is maintainable? (ii) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? The District Forum, on the question of maintainability found that since the subscriber paid at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month for thirty (30) months and after the expiry, as the opposite party failed to deliver the washing machine, there is deficiency in service. It, therefore, held that the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

On point No. 2, the District Forum held that it is not barred by limitation. Now it is settled that so far as the complainant before the District Forum is concerned, that it is residuary article, that applies and complaint has to be filed within a period of six (6) years. In the instant case, as the cheque was dated 27.8.1987 and as the complaint was filed on 13.7.1990, the complaint is within the period of 3 years. Hence within limitation. Moreover, no specific period of limitation is prescribed for, for filing of a complaint before the District Forum. Therefore, residuary article applies. So far as the contention of the appellant herein is concerned, namely that cheque was issued towards discharge of debt the District Forum left that question open to be decided at the time of enquiry and settle finally. The further submission that the issuance of cheque and its bouncing is not deficiency in service need not be considered at this stage, as the main complaint is based on a claim, for which, a washing machine has to be delivered and only failing the delivery of washing machine a cheque was issued. If the failure to deliver the washing machine is deficiency in service, were issuance of cheque and bouncing of cheque do not alter the cause of action. We consider that there is deficiency in service.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.