Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Ms. Seema Ganapati Kashi —Petitioner
versus
Silver Line Industries & Anr. — Respondents
Revision Petition No. 4459-4460 of 2010
(Against the order dated 15.04.2010 in Appeal No.340/2009 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)
Decided on 4.4.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Nemo.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum must deal with complaint on merits only if complaint has been filed within two years from date of accrual of cause of action.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Complaint—Limitation—Petitioner had purchased shares in year 1993 and complaint before District Forum was filed only in year 1999—Section 24-A is clearly peremptory in nature requiring Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining complaint, whether it has been filed within stipulated period of two years from date of cause of action—On face of it, complaint filed by petitioner is barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been filed by petitioner—Present revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone—Even on merits, petitioner has no case since she is not a “Consumer” within meaning of C.P. Act—Order passed by State Commission is based on sound reasonings—Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 11, 14 to 19)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Above noted revision petitions have been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against commonORDER dated 15.4.2010, passed in First Appeal Nos.340 & 344 of 2009 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Maharashtra State (short, “State Commission”).
2. Brief facts are that Petitioner in the year 1993, had purchased certain shares of Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 – Company, she submitted the same to Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 for transfer in her name. In 1995, the shares were transferred in the name of the petitioner and share certificates were dispatched to her. It appears that share certificates were lost in transit. Thus, petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai (short, “District Forum”) alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents.
3. Respondents contested the complaint. In their written statement, respondents took the plea, that shares have already been transferred in the name of the petitioner and dispatched to her. It is further stated that respondents will issue duplicate certificate in lieu of the same, provided Petitioner comply with the necessary formalities. It is also stated that petitioner is not a “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (short, ‘Act’) and as such complaint is not maintainable.
4. District Forum videORDER dated 16.5.2008, allowed the complaint and directed the respondents jointly and severally to pay the petitioner Rs.3 lakhs along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 1.4.2000 till the date of payment. They were further directed jointly and severally to pay dividend to the petitioner as declared along with 6% interest and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost
5. Not satisfied with theORDER of the District Forum, Petitioner filed an appeal for enhancement before the State Commission, whereas, respondents filed an appeal for setting aside theORDER of the District Forum.
6. The State Commission vide its impugnedORDER dated 15.4.2010, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. It however, allowed the appeal of the respondents and consequently, dismissed the complaint.
7. Now, petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
8. We have gone through the record.
9. On 31.3.2014, when petition came up for hearing before this Commission, followingORDER was passed ;
“The matter was passed over.
On the second call also, none is present on behalf of the petitioner.
As per the Registry, there is delay of 98 days in filing of the revision petition.
On 28.11.2013, one Ms. Aparna Mattoo, Advocate appeared on behalf of Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate and stated that Ms. Kiran Suri, arguing counsel for the petitioner has been designated as “Senior Counsel” and has asked the petitioner to engage a new counsel, but no intimation has been received from the petitioner.
Under these circumstances, notice wasORDERed to be issued to the petitioner for 10.2.2014.
On 10.2.2014, Ms. Aparna Mattoo, counsel for petitioner stated that she does not wish to engage a new lawyer.
This Commission had also received an application dated 16.1.2014 sent by the petitioner through her G.P.Holder, stating that petitioner does not want to engage a new counsel and matter may be decided on merits.
Since, application was not signed by the petitioner, we gave one more opportunity to the petitioner to argue her case, if so desires.
Today, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
We have perused the record.
ORDER reserved”.
10. The State Commission in itsORDER observed:
“What is interesting to note is that, that for a transaction which has taken in 1993 and transfer has taken in 1995, the complaint has been filed by the complainant on 30/03/1999 before District Consumer Forum South Mumbai. It was transferred to the Central Mumbai District Forum and thereafter, District Consumer Forum Central Mumbai has decided the complaint. The transaction is admittedly of 1993 and the compla
