SURESTA SHARMA Vs. PIAR CHAND(HONY.CAPT.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern the disposal of RP Nos. 3545/2007, 4124/2007, 4125/2007, 4126/2007, 4127/2007, 4128/2007 and 4129/2007 which arises out of common order dated 12.6.2007 of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla dismissing seven appeals arising out of same order dated 29.12.2004 of a District Forum dismissing the complaints filed by the petitioners.

(2.) IN the year 1993 the respondent/opposite party made publicity of his being appointed as agent of LPG Appenzell Petroleum Products Ltd., Chandigarh and invited the residents of the area for registration for supply of LPG. It was alleged that the petitioners got themselves registered with the respondent and deposited charges for gas connection cylinder, regulator and pipe etc. After supplying refilled gas cylinders for some time after more than four months of the booking the respondent stopped making supply of the gas cylinders to the petitioners. Claiming certain reliefs, the petitioners filed separate complaints which were contested by the respondent. One of the pleas taken by the respondent was that the complaints were barred by limitation. The District Forum upholding this plea, dismissed the complaints as time barred without going into the merits thereof by the order dated 29.12.2004. Appeals against this order filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the State Commission by the order under challenge affirming the finding of the District Forum of the complaints being barred by limitation.

(3.) ON point of limitation, the District Forum has referred to paras 5 and 6(iii) of the complaint(s). Copy of the complaint along -with affidavit is placed at pages 37 to 39 in RP No. 3545/2007. Similar complaints and affidavits were presumably filed in RPs other than RP No. 3545/2007. In para No. 4 of the complaint, it was alleged that refilled gas cylinder was not being supplied by the respondent on ground of non -supply of gas cylinders by the Company. In para No. 5 it was stated that the respondent gave in writing on 27.8.1999 that he was ready to supply refilled gas cylinders to the consumers. In para No.6 (iii) it was alleged that despite assurance given on 8.10.1999, the respondent was not in a position to make LPG supply to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that complaints were filed some time in August, 2002. Affidavit of Surestha Sharma filed in support of the complaint placed on the file of RP No. 3545/2007 is conspicuously silent in regard to the assurance allegedly given on 8.10.1999 nor was the said writing dated 27.8.1999 was filed and proved. In absence of proof of the alleged writing and the assurance given, both these dates cannot be taken as starting point of limitation for computation of limitation for filing complaints. Supply of refilled gas cylinders was stopped to the petitioners much before 27.8.1999/8.10.1999. Even if these dates are taken as starting point of limitation, the complaints filed in August, 2002 without applications under Section 24A(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were barred by limitation having been filed beyond two years period. We are unable to accept the contention advanced by Shri J.S. Kaniha for the petitioners that the refund of security amount could be claimed at any point of time, the limitation of two years will not apply in these cases. There is no illegality of jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below holding the complaints to be barred by limitation. Aforementioned revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.