AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 21(b) of the 2
The facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant had purchased flat from one society premises, thereby causing inconveniences/disturbance and jeopardizing the safety of the residents. It is the
Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed a consumer
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission.
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thoroughly perused the records.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that both the fora below have dismissed the complaint mainly on that the amount of excess service charges which the complainant has claimed have been paid on 10 th October, 2009
It was further pointed out by the learned counsel that the State Commission has further erred in considering opponent''s
The learned counsel further argued and supported his case by stating that the complainant''s claim for refund
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and examined the material on record. Admit complainant''s claim towards refund of illegal and excess service charges, parking charges excessive
First of all, it is to be seen whether the complaint was barred by limitation or not. It has also been observed the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a delay of three days as the learned counsel has agreed that the money Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court)(CP) has observed as under:- "12. Recently, in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT
It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years
Moreover, Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of N.Shrikhande vs Anita Sena Fernandes AIR 2011 SC "14. A reading of the above noted provisions makes it clear that the District Forum, the State Commission 2(d) and there is a ''defect'', as defined in Section 2(f) in relation to any goods or there is ''deficiency in service'' date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain dismiss the same......
.....Of course, if the complaint is barred by time, the consumer forum is bound to dismiss the same
From the above, it is clear that it is the duty of the consumer fora first to examine whether the complaint has
Here it is also relevant to mention that specific limitation periods are prescribed in the Consumer Protection " It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation
Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in Cicily KallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) " 4 . This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Devi & Ors. AIR 1994 Punjab and Haryana 45 , it has been laid " There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally
To see whether any purpose will be served if the delay is condoned, the prayers in the complaint are to be considered. held that:- "21.......The said demand was rejected by the Estate Officer by passing the reasoned
It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel the principle that one cannot
It is clear that the dues relate to the property in question. As per decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in State
So far as the second prayer in the complaint regarding parking charges of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, the State consider the illegality involved in the Bye-Laws of the society or they being ultra wires.
Both the fora below have given concurrent findings by dismissing the complaint and this Commission has limited "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in
Based on above examination, I find no merit in the Revision Petition No.2238 of 2015 and the same is dismissed