Back
2005 (1) CPR 652
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
R.S. Mongia, President; C.P. Budhiraja and Jasbir Kapoor, Members
Karnail Singh & Anr.—Complainants
versus
Sri Dashmesh Academy & Anr.—Opposite Parties
Misc. Application No. 218 of 2005 and original complaint No. 3 of 2005
Decided on 2-2-2005
Counsel for the parties :
For the Applicant/Complainant :K.K. Bansal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : None.
IMPORTANT POINT
ID legal advice for delay in filing complaint is not sufficient cause to condone delay just to avoid high court fees in alternate remedy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 12(3) and 24A — Complaint for fatal accidental injury caused by gun of the Principal to a student going in an excursion — Complaint 282 days beyond period of limitation u/s. 24A (1) — Condonation of delay u/s. 24A (2) on ground of mistaken legal advice — Whether a sufficient cause? (No) — Case not falling under CPA — Complaint and application both rejected.
Held: From the facts stated above in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Prima-facie, even the complainants’ counsel states that the remedy under Fatal Accidents Act may be available to the complainants but they have to affix a good amount of court fee which the parents cannot afford but that can hardly be a ground for condoning the delay.(Para 3)
We are also of the view that when the Principal had taken the students on excursion, he was not rendering any service for any consideration for which the students could be said to be con-sumers. It is not service that a person carrying a licensed weapon fires the same or it accidently goes off hitting someone as it is not one of the services which a Principal on an excursion either renders to any student even if a student is to be treated a ‘consumer’ under cer-tain circumstances. Even if the delay was to be condoned, we are of the view that case would not fall under the domain and jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act.(Para 4)
For the foregoing reasons, we refrain ourselves from entertaining this original complaint. The same is dismissed.(Para 5)
Before we part with the judgement, we may observe as a matter of abundant caution that dismissal of this complaint would not be a bar to the complainants to seek any other remedy under law.(Para 6)
Result : Complaint rejected at admission stage.
R.S. Mongia, President — This is an original complaint the facts of which will be noticed hereinafter. The period for filing a complaint is two years from the date cause of action arises under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This complaint has been filed 282 days beyond the period of limitation. The applicant seeks condonation of delay under Section 24-A(2) of the Act. The grounds given are that the applicants/complainants were advised by a parti-cular Advocate at Mansa who advised that case for compensation could be filed within three years under the Fatal Accidents Act and even a legal notice was sent on 18.12.2002 for that purpose. Later-on, another Advocate advised that the present complaint should be filed before this Commission claiming Rs.50 lacs as compensation.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicants’ son Gurpreet Singh was studying in Sri Dashmesh Academy, Anandpur Sahib in 10th Class and was staying in the Hostel. An excursion was arranged by the Institution and couple of students including Gurpreet Singh was taken for excursion by the Principal of
the Institution on 20.4,2002. While the students were on excursion at Drot Khud, District Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) Gurpreet Singh received bullet injury from the licensed gun which was being carried by the Principal of the Institution. F.I.R. was lodged and now even the Challan has been put in the court for the criminal trial of the Principal.
3. From the facts stated above in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Prima-facie, even the complainants’ counsel states that the remedy under Fatal Accidents Act may be available to the complainants but they have to affix a good amount of court fee which the parents cannot afford but that can hardly be a ground for condoning the delay.
4. We are also of the view that when the Principal had taken the stu-dents on excursion, he was not rendering any service for any consideration for which the students could be said to be consumers. It is not service that a person carrying a licensed weapon fires the same or it accidently goes off hitting someone as it is not one of the services which a Principal on an excursion either renders to any student even if a student is to be treated a ‘consumer’ under certain circumstances. Even if the delay was to be condoned, we are of the view that case would not fall under the domain and jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we refrain ourselves from entertaining
this original complaint. The same is dis-missed.
6. Before we part with the judg-ment, we may observe as a matter of abundant caution that dismissal of this complaint would not be a bar to the complainants to seek any other remedy under law.
Complaint rejected at
admission stage.
*******
