Back
2011(1) CPR 185
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HYDERABAD
Syed Abdullah and R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Members
D.V.S. Phanindhra — Appellant
versus
K. Badu & Anr. — Respondents
FA No. 790 of 2008
Decided on 27-7-2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. M. Haribabu, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. K. Jawahar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Served.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where complainant waited for three years without taking action against the first opposite party for non-supply of the computer, complaint alleging deficiency in service having become stale and barred by limitation held liable to be dismissed.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Complainant, a B-Tech student approached opposite party-2 for financial assistance for prosecuting his higher studies and to purchase a computer— The opposite party-2 sanctioned loan for Rs. 45,000 which was payable with interest at 9% p.a. —Out of the said loan a sum of Rs. 20,000 was given to meet educational fees— The remaining amount of Rs. 25,000 was issued in the form of pay order in the name of opposite party 1 for supply of Intel Computer worth Rs. 30,000— Non supply of computer by OP1—Complaint— District Forum held that complainant failed to establish that OP had not committed any deficiency in service—Apart from it, complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of limitation—Held No prudent person would keep quite for a period of three years, when the supplier, i.e., 1st opposite party had not supplied the computer even though he had received payment order for Rs. 25,000— In case, opposite party had not supplied computer one would report it to the banker for non—supply of it and the Banker could have taken immediate action—But complainant continued to repay monthly instalments and he never bring it to the notice of 2nd opposite party about the non-supply of it—It was surprising as to how complainant could wait from 14.9.2005 up to 28.1.2008 without taking action against opposite party-1 for non-supply of the computer which was in fact actually required in connection of his educational pursuit—Merely because opposite party-1 had not produced acknowledgement of delivery of the computer on receipt of payment order, it could not be inferred that opposite party-1 till this date had not delivered it— The complaint had become stale and barred by limitation as he failed to take action within time—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10 to 13)
Syed Abdullah, Member — The appellant is the unsuccessful complainant in CC 30/2008 before the District Forum II, Tirupathi and on the dismissal of the complaint, this appeal is filed questioning that the order is erroneous both on question of fact and law.
2. The facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, who is a B-Tech student of Siddartha Engineering College, Puttur, approached second opposite party for financial assistance for prosecuting his higher studies and to purchase a computer. The second opposite party sanctioned loan for Rs. 45,000 under loan Account Bearing No. UEL 1578. The loan is payable with interest at 9% p.a. out of the said loan a sum of Rs. 20,000 was given to meet educational fees. The remaining amount of Rs.25,000 was issued in the form of pay order bearing No. 328688 dated 14.9.2005 in the name of the first opposite party for supply of Intel Computer worth Rs. 30,000. The complainant had already paid Rs. 5,000 towards advance payment. So pay order was intended for the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000. After receiving the said pay order, the first opposite party failed to supply computer as a result of which he suffered in prosecuting his studies. The first opposite party had closed his shop situated at Gandhi Road so he could not contact him. Further, after ascertaining his address, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 9.1.2008 requiring him to supply the computer or to refund the amount with interest thereon The first opposite party failed to comply with the demand. The act or omission amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 resisted it filing separate versions by denying the allegations that the complainant filed the case by suppressing real facts. The complainant is a belated one and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The alleged loan amount was paid on 14.9.2005. The complaint was filed in the year 2008 after lapse of 3 years. The first opposite party had provided a computer to the complainant on receipt of payment of Rs.25,000 and that the complainant was duly satisfied with the computer supplied. The second opposite party had already closed his loan account and thereafter a fresh loan was also applied for by the complainant. As such, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed for.
4. The second opposite party’s stand is that under financial assistance scheme, the second opposite party had sanctioned loan under loan Account No. UEL 1578 on fulfilling formalities. A pay order dated 14. 9.2005 was issued for Rs. 25,000 in favour M/s. New Soft as per the written request of the first opposite party basing on the quotation produced by the complainant. The pay order was realized by the first opposite party on 15.9.2005. The second opposite party had furnished the information under Right to Information Act. The complaint is barred by limitation. The loan account is not closed and the same still exists as per the records. The second opposite party is not a proper party. The complaint is filed to have wrongful gain.
5. The complainant filed Exs. A-1 to A-3 alongwith his affidavit in support of his claim. The first opposite party field its affidavit. So also, the Senior Manager of the second opposite party filed affidavit alongwith Exs. B-1 to B-4.
6. The District Forum had adjudicated the dispute on three aspects—
(1) whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party towards the complainant?
(2) whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(3) whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
7. After going through the evidence on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish that the first opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. Apart from it, the complaint is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The contention that the caus
