Date of Filing:18.08.2021

Date of Disposal:20.04.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainant files a complaint with this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 with a direction to OP to repay a sum of  Rs.6,190/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the metal agony and harassment and  such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

The complainant has filed the complaint as against the OP seeking for the relief of refund of double payment of property tax of Rs.5,273/- along with other reliefs and tax is paid for the year 2011-2012 in the year 2013. The complainant repeatedly visited the OP office and requested for refund of the amount, but the complainant was assured by the OP that the amount will be adjusted during next payment of property tax for the subsequent year.  The complainant submits that the OP have not adjusted the said amount to the subsequent years tax. Hence,  by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of the OP, the complainant has preferred this complaint and prayed for the relief for refund of said amount.

3. Notice to OPs duly served, represented by counsel, filed written version, chief examination affidavit and also relevant documents in support of their case.

4.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant in support of their plea.

5.  Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for order.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complaint is barred by Limitation?
2. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
3. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1                  :  Affirmative

   Point No.2                 : In view of the findings given to point  no.1, consideration of Point No.2 does not arise.

Point No.3                  :  As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:-  The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant  has filed the complaint as against the OP seeking for the relief of refund of double payment of property tax of Rs.5,273/- along with other reliefs and tax is paid for the year 2011-2012 as by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complainant has preferred this complaint and prayed for the relief for refund of said amount.

9. The OP filed written version and the contention for the complaint allegations as mainly on point of limitation. The OP has contended that since the alleged double payment of tax which is made by the complainant for the year of 2011-12 and the payment is made on for the year 2013. The present complaint came to be filed on 2018. When such being the case the complainant has filed after lapse of limitation  period of 02 years. As per provisions of section 69 of  the C.P. Act, 2019 any aggrieved person has to prefer the complaint before the commission well within 02 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. When such being the case, the present complaint is filed after lapse of limitation period of 02 years. The complaint has to be dismissed as it is filed after  the lapse of limitation period as stipulated in the act and on this ground the OP contended that the complaint is to be dismissed on the ground of limitation point.

10. On perusal of the complaint affidavit and also by considering the contentions of both the parties and by looking on the events and transactions which took between the complainant and OP, it is crystal clear that the complainant alleged to have been made tax payment of Rs.5,273/- for the year 2011-12 and this tax is paid by the complainant in the year 2013. From this act of the complainant it clearly goes to show that if at all when the complainant has made double payment of tax pertaining to the year 2011-12 and the payment has made in the year 2013.  The cause of action to file the present complaint should have been accrued and  arosed well within 02 years from the period 2012-13. It is apparent from the face  of the record that the present complaint came to be filed in the year 2018. From this event it is apparent that the complainant has filed the present complaint  after the lapse of limitation period of 02 years and there is inordinate delay in filing  the present complaint and the complainant has neither whispered anything about the delay nor preferred any IA in order to condone the delay in filing the present complaint. When there is no specific reasons which is assigned by the complainant to condone the delay in filing complaint. The commission is not at all in a position to entertain the complaint on merits as it is barred by limitation under the provisions of the C.P.Act,2019 under section 69. Any complaint  which is filed beyond period of limitation in the absence any reasonable cause to condone the delay the commission is estopped to consider the complaint on merits as the present complaint is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act. The Appellate Authority and the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly reiterated in its judgments that the delay in filing the complaint needs to be reasonably explained with sufficient and acceptable reason and it is also specific laid down that each day delay needs to be explained with reasonable cause. In the absence of any of this  from the complainant side the complainant appears to be filed belatedly and  it is barred by limitation under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

11. In view of the discussion and by considering the facts of the case the complaint deserves to be dismissed as it is barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion, the Point No.1 we answer in Affirmative.

12. POINT NO.2:- In view of the findings given to point  no.1, consideration of Point No.2 does not arise.

13. POINT NO.3:- In the result, we passed the following:

                             ORDER

1. Complaint is dismissed as it is barred by limitation. No costs.

2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 20^th April 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

       (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Harikiran.K.N.-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP-1&2 by way of affidavit:

K.D.Deshpande-who being representative of OP-1 & 2

Documents produced by the OP-1 &2: Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*