At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioners: Maibam N. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 23-05-2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1685 of 2010 – Punjab Agriculture University & Anr. Vs. M/s Saveer Biotech Ltd. & Anr., by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No. 1 agreed to construct a greenhouse for the complainants/appellants, vide agreement dated 4.12.1998. In the meeting held on 20.1.1998, which was attended by Sanjay Sudan, Representative of the opposite parties, the Company agreed to complete the project within 12 weeks from the acceptance of the orders. As the Agreement was signed on 4.12.1998, so the same was liable to be completed by mid of March, 1999. The opposite parties failed to construct and complete the same within that period and, thus, failed to comply with the terms and conditions so settled between them. The test running of the green house was held on 24.4.2000 and it was found that shading net was not of green colourand heating converter had not been installed. The condition was found unsatisfactory and accordingly the opposite parties were directed to remove the discrepancies, vide letter dated 30.5.2002. Thereafter, before the test running, this green house was damaged due to average wind during 17.2.2003 to 19.2.2003; as the material used for the construction was not as per the specifications. Opposite party gave new estimate of Rs.1,76,000/- for repairs though complainants were not bound to pay aforesaid amount.Green house was not repaired inspite of receipt of Rs.8,23,477/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.Opposite party resisted complaint and admitted execution of agreement but submitted that demand of Rs.1,76,000/- was made for effecting repairs.It was further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint.Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to State Commission.
5. Perusal of record clearly reveals that agreement was executed between parties on 04-12-1998 and green house was completed on 06-03-2000 and damage to the green house was caused due to wind during 17-02-2003 to 19-02-2003 and for repairs of greenhouse estimated of Rs.1,76,000/- was given. Complainant filed complaint in 2010 whereas complaint should have been filed within period of two years from completion of the greenhouse or at the most from date of damage to defective construction of green house, which occurred in February, 2003. Complaint was clearly barred by limitation and learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation and learned State Commission has also not committed any error in dismissing appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards letter dated 30-01-2006 written by opposite party to complainant in which only this fact has been mentioned that they are hopeful to finish work before 25-02-2006 and testing of green house will be done between 26-02-2006 to 27-03-2006 subject to receiving payment before 04-03
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
-2006. Even if it is taken that limitation can be counted from this letter, complaint filed in the year 2010 is clearly barred by limitation. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.