S GROVER Vs. BALASUNDARAM & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are satisfied that this appeal has to be accepted. The complaint is laid by a lawyer stating that he sent money to the opposite party for supply of old law reports and that the opposite party have failed to supply about 12 volumes in spite of demands and requests and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to recover the cost of the same along with compensation for mental agony. It is to be pointed out that the complainant sent the cheque on 24.3.1995 dating it as 10.4.1995 for Rs. 14,500/ - towards the cost of old law reports. The complainant has not anywhere stated when the books were supplied to him. While so, he issues a notice on 27.3.1998 and thereafter lays the complaint on 12.5.1998. Therefore, on the face of it, the complaint is barred by limitation. Merely, because he has chosen to give a notice at his convenience nearly 3 years after, it cannnot be contended that the cause of action arose only on and from the date of notice. The complainant who is a lawyer ought to have known the law better. Therefore, the complaint is very much barred by limitation. Further, the complaint is purposely vague. He has not stated to whom he has placed the order. Though there are two opposite parties arrayed, in the course of complaint it is mentioned in Para 2 as only opposite party. It is not stated anywhere to whom the amount was sent and who was contacted by the complainant when he found that certain volumes were not supplied. Thus, the complaint is purposely vague. It is not explained in the complaint as to the role played by the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party in the transaction. The 1st opposite party says that there is no privity of contract between him and the complainant and the 1st opposite party simply supplied the books to the 2nd opposite party in 'as is where is condition' and it is the 2nd opposite party who sold the same to the complainant. In spite of it the complainant has not chosen to clarify the same. The 2nd opposite party has denied totally that he had any transaction with the complainant. In the proof affidavit filed also he has stated that the cheque was received by the opposite parties but it is stated it is the 1st opposite party who did not supply certain volumes and he contacted the 1st opposite party. While so, it is not stated how the 2nd opposite party is sought to be made a party though it is categorically admitted in the affidavit that there is no contract as between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. Thus, from the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the complaint is not only barred by limitation but is quite vague. The complainant has not established the privity of contract. He has failed to prove the case as against the opposite parties. He is not even sure as to who supplied him the goods, and with whom he entered into contract of service. He has not produced the counterfoil of the cheque and any letter to show that the cheque was sent either to the 1st opposite party or to the 2nd opposite party. He has been purposely vague and failed to mention the date of supply. He waits for nearly a period of 3 years to give a notice. Therefore, these circumstances would clearly go to show that the complaint is bereft of any merits. It is also strange for the complainant to contend that on account of the non -supply of certain volumes, he suffered mental agony and for which he has claimed a princely sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. Thus on an analysis, we are satisfied that the complaint is frivolous besides being barred by limitation.

(2.) IN the result, this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250/ -. The order passed by the Lower Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/ -. Time for compliance : Two months.