Gurmukh Singh vs Pargat Pal Singh

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as the 'State Commission'), by which the Appeal preferred by the Respondent herein has been allowed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Forum has been set aside.

We have heard Mr. Gurmukh Singh, the Petitioner in person and perused the impugned Order.

Mr. Gurmukh Singh, the Petitioner, submitted that the State Commission had committed an error of law and had misread the averments made in the Complaint when it came to the conclusion that full particulars of the goods, which were not delivered to the Petitioner, had not been mentioned in the Complaint. He further submitted that the transportation charges were agreed at Rs.2,000/-, which was also admitted by the Respondent herein in reply to the notice dated 04.05.2007 sent by the Respondent. According to him, the Order passed by the State Commission suffers from a clear irregularity as it has misread the averments made in the Complaint as also various documents filed before the District Consumer Forum where the proceedings were ex parte and the Respondent did not appear.

We have perused the averments made in the Complaint filed by the Petitioner herein. In paragraph 6 of the Complaint, full particulars of the goods, which have not been delivered to the Petitioner, have been given. For ready reference, paragraph 6 of the Complaint is reproduced as below:

"6. That the complainant suffered heavy monetary loss in his profession (being an advocate) due to non delivery of office goods, hence, the compensation for harassment, non-operating of office, the O.P. should pay a sum of Rs.20000/- to the complainant. The goods which are not delivered till date are as follows:

Office table(2) office Chairs (5 nos) (3) One almirah(4) one iron ghori (5) one stool (6) one fan which all cost a sum of Rs.10000/-."

Thus, the finding recorded by the State Commission that the full particulars of the goods, which were not delivered have not been given by the Complainant herein, is absolutely incorrect. However, the full particulars of the goods/items have been mentioned by the Petitioner. So far as the transportation charges agreed into between the Parties is concerned, the Petitioner has specifically mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Complaint that in reply dated 14.05.2007 to the notice dated 04.05.2007, the Respondent herein had admitted that the deal was settled for Rs.2000/- and Rs. 500/- being additionally charged from the Complainant. Thus, the case set up by the Petitioner herein has been duly mentioned in the Complaint and also stands proved by the material evidence produced on record. A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be filed within two years when the cause of action arose and not one month as held by the State Commission and dismissing the Complaint and drawing an inference that the Petitioner slept over the matter and did not raise the issues and woke up only after the reply dated 14.05.2007 was received.

The Complaint has been filed in the year 2007 itself i.e. well within a period of two years and is within limitation and the Complaint could not have been dismissed on this ground alone.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission had committed an error which requires to be corrected accordingly. The Order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the State Commission is set aside and the Order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the District Forum is restored. The Petitioner shall be at entitled to cost of Rs.5,000/-.