Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V. B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Suresh Chandra, Member
Krishan Lal Kalra —Petitioner
versus
M/s Religare Security Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.06 of 2011
(Against order dated 12.11.2010 in Complaint Case No.56 of 2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana), With Interim Application for Condonation of Delay, Interim Application for Stay
Decided on 30.1.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Nemo.
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. A. K. Jain, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Disputes between parties relating to commercial purposes are excluded under C.P. Act.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d) and 24-A—Capital market—Unfair trade practices—Consumer complaint dismissed by State Commission in limine being barred by limitation as well as on ground that appellant is not a consumer—No complaint can be entertained by Consumer Forum if it is not filed within two years from date of cause of action—Besides, appellant had been indulging regularly in day trading business of shares— Appellant has nowhere pleaded in its entire complaint that he is doing share business for self-employment—Nor, he has pleaded that services provided by respondents were being availed of exclusively for the purpose of earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment—Disputes between parties relating to commercial purposes are excluded under the Act—Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.5.000/-. (Paras 7, 12 to 15)
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by impugned order dated 12.11.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, ‘State Commission’) in (Consumer Complaint No. 56 of 2010), has filed this appeal.
2. Appellant’s case is that he has been dealing with Respondents No.1 and 2/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 through Respondents No.3/Opposite Party No.3 (authorized agent of respondent no.1) in the business of financing money for use in the share market. Appellant, accordingly entered into an agreement with respondents no.1 and 2. It is alleged that there due to unfair trade practices on the part of respondents no.1 and 2, appellant suffered a total loss of Rs.36,11,026/- in respect of shares which were purchased by him on 16.5.2006 through the respondents, who illegally sold some of the shares without his consent. They further withheld some of his shares. Accordingly, a consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission.
3. The consumer complaint was dismissed by the State Commission in limnie, being barred by limitation as well as on the ground that appellant is not a ‘Consumer’.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant has filed this appeal.
5. Notice of appeal was issued to all the respondents. Initially, all the respondents had put in their appearances. On 12.01.2015, when matter was listed for admission hearing, none was present on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2. Hence, they were proceeded exparte.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 and gone through the record.
7. State Commission in its impugned order has observed;
“Admittedly the opposite parties has sold the share of the complainant before the B.S.E. and N.S.E. on 17.10.2008, whereas the complainant has filed the complaint before this Commission on 19.10.2010 without moving any application for condonation of delay. The plea taken by learned counsel for the complainant that complainant received the said information on 20.10.208 is not acceptable because the share transaction is based on “On Line Networking” and the share-holders can watch their details of share transaction by using the internet on their Computer. The complainant has made false story just to take benefit of Limitation Act. The cause of action arose to the complainant on 17.10.2008 i.e. on the date of settlement whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint on 19.10.208 i.e beyond the prescribed period of two years as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is well settled principle of law that no complaint can be entertained by the Consumer Forum if it is not filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951(Supreme Court) (CP): 2009(4) CPR 17 (SC) wherein in para No. 12 of the said judgment it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court.
“12. Recently, in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009(3) CPR 107 (SC): 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) : JT 2009 (4) SC 191 this Court while dealing with the same provision, has held as under:-
8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual
