AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE opposite party in the C.D. No. 40/93 is M/s Leafin India Ltd., is the appellant herein.
IT is the case of the complainant that he purchased a Colour TV on instalment basis from the opposite party and he has to pay 36 instalments at Rs. 488/- each, within a period of 3 years and the total amount payable comes to Rs. 17,568/-. After paying the entire amount to the opposite party the complainant asked for return of the original agreement and other documents, but the opposite party took the stand the one M/s Kirloskar Investment & Finance Ltd., issued a letter to the complainant demanding the amount of Rs. 5053.40 Ps. for which a suitable reply was given by the complainant. But the opposite party did not return the documents inspite of the complainant paying the entire amount to the opposite party. IT is the case of the complainant that even if the complainant is due any amount to M/s Kirloskar Investments & Finance Ltd., the opposite party i.e. M/s Leafin India Ltd., cannot withhold the documents of the complainant after the entire amount was paid to them. In support of the case, the complainant filed Exs. A-1 to A-16. The receipts shows that the entire amount due was paid by the complainant. The District Forum therefore directed the opposite party to return the original documents and awarded costs of Rs. 100/-.
This appeal is preferred questioning the aforesaid order.
SINCE the evidence on record establishes that all the instalments due to the opposite party was paid by the complainant, and there is no justification for the opposite party to withhold the original documents even, the complainant is due in a sum of Rs. 5053.40 Ps. to the Kirlosker Investments & Finance Ltd. We therefore did not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. It also appears that the appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation, without any petition for condoning the delay. It is evident that the District Forum passed the order on 19.7.1993. The complainant filed this appeal with an application to dispense with the filing of the original order. Therefore, the appellant alleged in a memorandum of grounds that he came to know of the order only on 31.1.1994 and filed this appeal.
IN the counter filed by the respondent he clearly stated that on 13.8.93 he informed the petitioner through certificate of posting that the District Forum passed the order on 19.7.93. IN these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant came to know of the order only on 31.1.1994, counting the period from the date of his knowledge as 13.8.93. The appeal is clearly barred by limitation. On this count also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. No costs. Appeal dismissed without costs.