AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against the order dt. 15-10-1998 passed by the Jammu and Kashmir States Consumers Protection Commission,
whereby complaint of the appellant herein (complaint No. 219/95) was not entertained on the grounds that it contained stale claims.
The factual matrix of the case is that in the year 1987, the appellant was carrying on the business of a Travel Agent and had organised a tour of
the pilgrims to a foreign country. The expenses to be incurred for this pilgrimage were deposited by the appellant in the Saving Account No. 796
maintained by respondent. This was done for the purpose of getting foreign exchange. On 24-1-89, a sum of rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand
was deducted on account of travel Tax. The appellant contends that the said amount could not be deducted because pilgrimage tour had been
exempted from paying travelling tax. According to him, the respondent had failed to render service to him as a consumer.
Respondent had contested the claim of the complainant by pleading that tax was legally leviable as the tour was conducted in the year 1987
when no exemption for paying such tax had been incorporated in the concerned law.
The Commission did not entertain the complaint on the ground that a stale claim had been brought to be enforced which was not permissible. As
per the showing of the appellant, he had the knowledge of the deduction of tax on 24-1-89. The cause of action to file the complaint had accrued
to him on this day but without any explanation he waited for more than eight years and filed the complaint on 19-7-95.
Through the medium of this appeal, the order of dismissal of the complaint has been challenged on the grounds that on the day when the
complaint was filed (19-7-95) no period stood prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumers Protection Act for filing the complaint. That
the complaint was filed with reasonable period and its dismissal in limine is against the aims and objects of the Act.
Heard the arguments.
Admittedly when the complaint was filed there was no limitation prescribed for entertaining the complaint though, period for filing the appeals
against the orders made by the Divisional Forum and State Commission stood prescribed of 30 days from the date of the order in question. This
was a lacuna left in the Act and the legislature in its wisdom amended the Act vide Act No. XIX of 1997.
Section 18-A has been inserted in the Principal Act (Act No. XVI of 1987) which runs as under:--
18-A. Limitation period (1) The Divisional Forum or the State Commission may not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the
date on which the cause of action arises.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1) of the
complainant satisfies the Divisional Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint
within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the Divisional Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons
for condoning such delay.
From the perusal of the amended law it is crystal clear that a complaint can be entertained provided it is filed within two years from the date on
which the cause of action arises. Neither the Divisional forum nor the State Commission can entertain a complaint without being satisfied by the
complainant that the latter had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. The intention behind this amendment is that stale
actions should not be entertained. This was done to curb the menace of frivolous or vexatious complaints. By this very amendment Section 20 of
the Original Act was substituted by the amended Section where a duty has been cast on the Divisional Forum or the State Commission as the case
may be to dismiss the frivolous or vexatious claims with reasons to be recorded and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite
party such cost, not exceeding Ten thousand rupees. From this intention of the legislature it can be inferred that there had not been any other
contrary intention pervading through the warp and woof of the unamended Act. But not prescribing specific limitation for filing the complaints the
legislature at that time never had thought that old and stale claims could also be entertained. This could have opened flood gates of frivolous
litigation. Even at that time, the legislature is deemed to have left it to the Judicial discretion of the forum or Commission to entertain such claims
which were brought within a reasonable time.
Let us view this case from another angle. In case the present cause of action had arisen before coming into force the Jammu and Kashmir
Consumers Protection Act, the remedy available to the appellant was in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. When the appellant had deposited
this amount in the year 1987 in his saving Account No. 796, he had a contract with the terms and conditions relating to such deposit that the
money will be kept safe and refunded along with the interest on demand. This was a contract entered into between the parties. The case of the
appellant in hand is that respondent without his authority has allowed the deduction of Travel Tax from the deposited amount. If this plea is
accepted it can be a breach of the contract. The remedy available to the appellant was to sue the respondent for this breach of contract and in that
eventuality Article 86 of the Limitation Act was applicable. Under this Article, for the compensation for the breach of any contract, express or
implied, not in writing registered and not herein specially provided for the period of limitation is three years. The period begins when the contract is
broken. In the instant case, in case the appellant had to bring a cause in the civil Court, he could go so within a period of three years and not after
eight years. In the year 1987, the legislature provided this alternate speedy remedy by enacting the Act for better protection of the interests of the
consumers. It cannot be construed mat dead or stale claims were allowed to be entertained in the concerned Forums. This claim could be
entertained by the Commission within three years from the date of the cause of action and beyond that period, the appellant was required to satisfy
the Commission about the existence of sufficient cause. As this was not done so the Commission was legally right not to entertain it. On these facts,
we find no force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.