SOHAL MOTORS Vs. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by M/s Sohal Motors, Swaraj Mazda Agency, Amritsar is directed against the order dated 23rd of September, 2010 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) in Revision Petition No. 34 of 2010. Vide the said order, the State Commission has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner herein, which was filed to assail the two orders dated 19th of April, 2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short the District Forum) in two separate applications, one filed by the petitioner and the other filed by opposite party no. 2 i. e. M/s Swaraj Mazda Limited, the manufacturer. In his application, the petitioner had challenged the entertainability of the complaint on the ground that the same was hopelessly time barred. It had also been stated that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was, however, not elaborated as to how the complainant was not a 'consumer'. In the other application filed by opposite party no. 2, the manufacturer, while seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation, an additional plea was raised that they have been unnecessarily arrayed as a party in the complaint and the dispute revolves around only the complainant and the petitioner interse. The District Forum on consideration of the application filed by the petitioner held that the complaint was not barred by limitation. It, however, allowed the application of opposite party no. 2, the manufacturer, and agreed to strike off its name from the array of parties, holding that there was no allegation in the entire complaint of any payment made to the opposite party no. 2/manufacturer at any point of time nor was there any allegation with regard to any unfair trade practice.

(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved not only by the dismissal of his application but also on account of the District Forum having agreed to delete the manufacturer from the array of opposite parties filed the revision petition before the State Commission. Before the State Commission, as would be evident from the records, the plea of the complaint being barred by limitation was not pressed but the point of the complainant not being a 'consumer', which had not been elaborated in the application filed before the District Forum, was pressed on the plea that three Swaraj Mazda chassis, for which payments were received by the petitioner, were meant for commercial purposes. The State Commission in its order has not accepted this plea. On the question of opposite party no. 2/manufacturer being deleted from the array of parties, the point was vehemently pressed before the State Commission but the same also has been rejected and that is how the petitioner has again filed this revision petition before this Commission to assail the decision of the State Commission.

(3.) Shri Subodh Kr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. The record has been perused. The three grounds on which learned counsel has attempted to establish his case for interference of this Commission under the supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are firstly that the complaint was barred by limitation and secondly that the complainant was not a 'consumer' and lastly that there was no ground for deleting opposite party no. 2/manufacturer from the array of opposite parties. Learned counsel has not pressed the point of limitation; understandably because the petitioner had responded to the tender of the complainant with his offer to supply three chassis of the Swaraj Mazda make at Rs. 14,43,726/- and his offer had been accepted by the complainant and full payment of the three chassis had been received by him on 18.11.2006. It is the admitted case that till date the said three chassis have not been supplied to the complainant. Thus, there is a continuing cause of action and the question of the complaint being barred by limitation does not arise.