Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Birla Medical Technologies —Petitioner
versus
Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj General Hospital —Respondent
Revision Petition No.4710 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 24/10/2013 in Appeal No. 85/2004 of the State Commission Maharastra)
Decided on 22.12.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Shipra Mathur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ankur Gupta, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
It is duty of Consumer Fora to examine issue of limitation before admitting a consumer complaint.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 24-A-Limitation-It is duty of Consumer Fora to examine issue of limitation before admitting a consumer complaint and then to record reasons for extension of time, if there were sufficient grounds to do the same-Looking at chronology of events in present case, there does not seem to be any sufficient reason showed by complainant for condoning inordinate delay on part of complainant in moving Consumer Fora-Contention raised by petitioner that after lapse of huge time of 20 years, they were unable to lay hands on concerned papers and defend the case properly, seems to be based on logical reasoning-Order passed by State Commission condoning delay in filing consumer complaint is not in accordance with law-Impugned order set aside and consumer complaint dismissed.
Held: As per the law laid down in the judgments quoted above, it is the duty of the consumer fora to examine the issue of limitation before admitting a consumer complaint and then to record reasons for extension of time, if there were sufficient grounds to do the same. Looking at the chronology of events in the present case, there does not seem to be any sufficient reason showed by the complainant for condoning the inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in moving the consumer fora.
Another interesting feature of the case is that after filing the complaint in August 2004, the notice was sent to the OPs by the State Commission for the first time in March 2012, i.e., after a period of 8 years for the reasons best known to the State Commission.
The contention raised by the petitioner that after the lapse of huge time of 20 years, they were unable to lay hands on the concerned papers and defend the case properly, seems to be based on logical reasoning.
Based on the foregoing discussion, it is held that the order passed by the State Commission condoning the delay in filing the consumer complaint is not in accordance with law. The said order is, therefore, set aside and this revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the consumer complaint, in question, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs (Paras 11 to 14)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 24.10.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. CC/04/85, vide which, miscellaneous application No. 1829/2004, filed by the complainant/respondent, seeking condonation of delay of 501 days in filing the complaint in question, was allowed and the matter was listed for admission hearing on 04.12.2013.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj General Hospital Solapur, (hereinafter called as Hospital) is a state-owned general hospital of the Government of Maharashtra and under the administrative control of the said hospital is V.M. Medical College, Solapur. The complainant floated tenders for the supply of an equipment called, Blood Gas Analyser for the V.M. Medical College in the year 1999, for which the petitioner/opposite party (OP) respondent offered to supply a Hong Kong-made machine for a price of US$ 30,000 ex-ware house Hong Kong, vide their letter dated 09.04.92. After seeking approval from the Government, the complainant placed an order for the purchase of the said equipment with the respondent vide their letter dated 22.04.92 and the cost payable for the said instrument was Rs.9,59,879/-. An agreement was signed between the parties on 27.04.92 as acceptance of the offer and as stated in the consumer complaint, the equipment was to be supplied within 10 weeks from the opening of letter of credit by the complainant. The complainant opened the letter of credit with State Bank of India, Solapur by depositing a sum of Rs.8,23,000/- vide letter dated 29.05.92. The Bank issued irrevocable letter of credit dated 14.07.92 in favour of M/s. Instrumentation Laboratories (Far East) Limited USA, which was later amended at the request of the contractor to be payable at Hong Kong. The equipment was to be supplied within 10 weeks from the opening of LOC, i.e., by 21.09.1992, but the same was supplied on 18.11.92, i.e., with a delay of 8 weeks. The complainant had to pay an extra amount of Rs.40,975/- towards difference in exchange rate, due to late delivery. After several requests from the complainant, the contractor sent their service engineer to install the machine on 04.02.93, but even at that time, it was noticed that some regulator was malfunctioning. Even after the repair of the said regulator, the machine did not function properly. The facts were brought to the notice of the contractor many times. Vide letter dated 29.04.93, the contractor requested the complainant to permit them to transport the Gas I cylinder which had leaked due to faulty regulator. He also undertook to replace the regulator. In their consumer complaint, the complainants have given details of the correspondence exchanged between them and the opposite party during the years 1993 and 1994, regarding the problems encountered by them in the functioning of the machine. Thereafter, on 05.10.1998, the complainant asked the respondent to replace the equipment, in response to which they sent a letter dated 21.10.98, saying that they were reviewing the entire case and would respond to the complainant. It is stated that various letters were sent by the complainant from time to time as a follow-up of their request to replace the machine, but appropriate action was not taken by the opposite party. The letters sent on 03.04.2002 and 04.06.2002 were received back undelivered. The consumer complaint in question was then filed in August 2004, after getting permission from the Government, seeking directions to the OP/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.28,60,439.42ps., being the total cost of blood gas analyser, including interest @18% p.a. on the amount in question. Alongwith the complaint, an application for condonation of delay was also filed before the State Commission, giving det
