GREEN CHANNEL CHIT FUNDS And FINANCE CO. vs PAPIL JAIN

SINCE the above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioners under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') have common facts and also raise common question of law for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, have been heard together at the admission stage and are being disposed of by this common order.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petitions lie in a narrow compass. THE respondents, in the above mentioned petitions, had filed separate complaints against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. A notice of the complaints, so filed by the respondents, was given to the petitioners who have entered appearance. In the above mentioned petitions the only grievance of the petitioners, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners before us, is that the learned District Forum did not consider the objection taken by them to the effect that the complaints, filed by the respondents were barred by time in terms of provisions contained in Section 24A of the Act and proceeded further in the matter and ordered that the said objections taken by the petitioners shall be decided at the time of finally disposing of the complaints. It is against that order dated 9.5.2003 that the petitioners have filed the above mentioned petitions with the prayer that the District Forum be directed to consider the question of limitation raised by the petitioners first before deciding the matters on merits. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners at length on the question of admission of the above mentioned petitions and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record it is apparent that in the complaints, filed by the respondents, before the District Forum, the petitioners, who were the opposite parties had been served by publication and had entered appearance on 2.2.2003. After entering appearance the petitioners sought time for filing reply/written version. It is practically after a gap of more than two months that reply/written version has been filed on behalf of the petitioners after paying the costs which was awarded by the District Forum vide order dated 7.3.2003. Thereafter the respondents have filed the replication/rejoinder and affidavit by way of evidence on 9.5.2003. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned District Forum instead of deciding the objection of limitation taken by the petitioner has directed that the said objection would be decided by the District Forum while finally disposing of the complaints on merits. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions such an objection is to be taken of the earliest possible opportunity. In the instant case, as already stated, the petitioners who are opposite parties before the District Forum in the complaint cases had entered appearance for the first time on 2.2.2003. Not only this thereafter also they had appeared on 6.3.2003, 7.3.2003 and 3.4.2003. No such objection was taken by the petitioners on the above mentioned dates and it was on 4.4.2003 that the petitioners in the reply filed by them, have taken the preliminary objection to the effect that the complaint, filed by the respondents, were barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24-A of the Act. Since the above preliminary objection has been taken at a much later stage, the District Forum was fully justified in passing the order that the preliminary objection shall be considered by the District Forum while finally disposing of the complaints. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the above finding of the learned District Forum. The present petitions, filed by the petitioners are, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merit dismissal. Accordingly, the same are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. However, before concluding we would like to make it clear that the District Forum while finally hearing the complaints on merits shall also take into consideration the preliminary objection taken by the petitioners to the effect that the complaints, filed by the respondents, were barred by limitation in terms of provisions contained in Section 24A of the Act and the above said preliminary objection shall be considered and decided by the District Forum while disposing of the complaints on merits after hearing. Both the parties and also after taking into consideration the material that may be parties and also after taking into consideration the material that may be placed by both the parties before the District Forum. The above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioners, stand disposed of in above terms. R.Ps. disposed of.