Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/411

VIKRANT MAHAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

COUNTRY CLUB - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

Complaint Case No.  411/18

31.10.2018

Present :-Complainant in person.

Present complaint has been filed under section  12 of  Consumer Protection  Act  on the averment that  complainant  purchased membership of   OP in June 2014 for sum of Rs. 60,000/-  vide membership  CCDL10Club18930.  After purchase of aforesaid  membership, the executive of OP informed the complainant that whenever  complainant  wants  service of holiday package he would just have to share schedule and OP  would provide availability of service .  However,  when  complainant contacted  concerned  persons of OP for booking of holiday in resort he bluntly refused  to provide  booking stating  no property  was available there. Thereafter complainant contacted representative of OP  on a number of occasions  to get holiday booked but every time they made fake excuses. The complainant realized he was  trapped  by representative   of  OP  after giving lucrative  offer to purchase membership .  It is case of  complainant that on   04.02.2015  complainant   wrote   letter    to   OP   detailing  

grievance  in the hope of receiving positive response but all in vain.  Hence  the present complaint with prayer for  refund  of Rs. 50,000/- and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.  5,000/- .

2.     We have heard  Ld. Counsel of  complainant perused the entire record.  Admittedly the membership of OP was purchased by  complainant in June, 2014 as per membership  certificate  which was  vailed up to 07.05.2015.  We have also  gone through  the letter dated 04.02.2015  sent by complainant to OP  about  deficiency  in service by way of cheating according to the complainant .  This letter was  never responded to by the OP as a result the cause of action arose in favour of complainant w.e.f. 4.02.2015 to approach the consumer forum within two years from 04.02.2015 whereas the present complaint has been filed in October, 2018  much after expiry of  limitation  period  as provided under Consumer Protection  Act and no application u/s 5 of Limitation Act  for  condonation of delay has been filed by complainant  thus prima facie the complaint  appears to be time bared.

The  National Commission in the case title  CPJ 509(NC )case tiled Richard Reja Singh Vs Ford Motor Co. Ltd.   held as under :-

Sec 24 A, 2 1(a)(i) Limitation  - Accrual of cause of action-Cause of action for filing the complaint arose  when complaint                    came to know for the first time  that  air bags had collapsed not deployed despite impact  from TATA Vehicle – Neither service of  notice or  response to notice gave rise to any fresh cause of action  of –Provision of Sec  24 A of the Act being  mandatory  and  rather peremptory  in nature .  Complaint barred by law of limitation. IV(2010)CPJ 27(SC)  .

 

In another case Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in case tilted

Anshul Aggarwal Vs  New Okhla Industrial  Development  Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63(SC) held us under:-

It is also opposite to observe that  while deciding  an application filed in  such case for condonation of delay, the court  has to keep in mind that   the  special period  of limitation has been prescribed  under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for  filing appeals /revision  in consumer matters and the  object of expeditious  adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if this court    was to entertain  highly belated petitions filed  against the Consumer Forum .                           

The National  Commission yet   in another   case  IV (2014)  CPJ 507 (NC)  titled  PSPCL Vs  Manoj Wadhwa held  as under :-

Sec 24 A,2 1 (b) Delay of 106 days –expression “sufficient  cause” cannot be erased  from  Sec-5  of Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach , which would   defect the very much purpose of  Section 5 of  Limitation Act and Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Keeping in view the aforesaid  discussion and circumstance  and  law point  settled by the higher courts the complainant has failed to explain  delay , therefore, the complaint filed under section 12  is  time  barred and thus dismissed.

File be consigned to the record room.

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                           ( K.S. MOHI ) 

MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT                      

31.10.2018                                                        31.10.2018