AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant/petitioner submitted a tender to the respondent offering his vehicle No.MP20F9652 for hire. According to the complainant/petitioner there was no clause in contract executed between the parties, for payment of service tax by him. The opposite party, however, recovered a sum of Rs.35,000/ - from him towards payment of the service tax. Contending that the aforesaid amount was not payable by him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite party to return the aforesaid amount of Rs.35,000/ - along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He also sought cost of litigation amounting to Rs.5,000/ -.
THE complaint was resisted by the respondent/opposite party inter alia on the ground that as per clause 4 of the contract the liability towards payment of taxes was to be borne by the contractor and not by the opposite party. The complaint was also opposed on the ground that it was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint had been filed.
VIDE its order dated 24 -07 -2012 the District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation noticing that the amount of Rs.35,000/ - towards payment of service tax had been deposited by the complainant on 25 -10 -2004 whereas the complaint was filed on 24 -04 -2007. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal, however, was dismissed for want of prosecution on 01 -11 -2013. Being aggrieved the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition. However, the complainant/petitioner has not appeared at any point of time after filing this revision petition. He did not remain present on 29 -10 -2014, 10 -02 -2015 and 24 -02 -2015. On the last date of hearing he sent a fax seeking an adjournment on the ground that his counsel was out of station and the matter was adjourned for today. No application has been received from him seeking further adjournment and no one has appeared even till 3:15 P.M.
AS per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum will not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The term cause of action has not been defined in the Act but broadly it comprises the set of facts which the complainant will have to prove in order to succeed in the complaint filed by him. In the case before us, in order to succeed the complainant was required to prove the payment of service tax. Therefore, the date on which the service tax was paid by him would certainly constitute the cause of action for the purpose of filing this complaint. The District Forum on perusal of the record found that the aforesaid payment was deposited by the complainant on 25 -10 -2004. There is no material before us to show that the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the District Forum is incorrect. Therefore, we find no fault with the view taken by the District Forum in this regard and accordingly hold that having been filed on 24 -04 -2007 the complaint was clearly barred by limitation. Since no application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint was filed by the complainant, the District Forum had no occasion even to go into the circumstances causing the aforesaid delay in filing the complaint.
FOR the reasons stated hereinabove we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.