| Before the 4th Addl District consumer forum, 1st Floor, B.M.T.C, B-Block, T.T.M.C, Building, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bengaluru - 560027 | | S.L.Patil, President |
|
| |
| Complaint Case No. CC/63/2023 | | ( Date of Filing : 02 Mar 2023 ) |
| | | | 1. Mrs. Meera Nagesh | | Aged about 59 years, D/o. Late Mr. H.R.S. Suryanarayana Rao R/at Ajantha Comforts No.45/46, Puttenahalli Road, JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore-560078. | | 2. Mr. Mahesh Chandra Rao | | Aged about 56 years, S/o. Late Mr. H.R.S. Suryanarayana Rao are R/at Ajantha Comforts No.45/46, Puttenahalli Road, JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore-560078. | | 3. Mr. Kamlesh Chandra Rao | | Aged about 42 years, S/o Late Mr. H.R.S Suryanarayana Rao, R/at Ajantha Comforts No.45/46, Puttenahalli Road, JP Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore-560078. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Mantri Lifespaces Primus Pvt Ltd. | | #Mantri House, No.41, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001, Rep by the Managing Director, And also Crown Point, No.36, 2nd Floor, Lavalle Road, Bangalore-560001. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| |
| BEFORE: | | | | HON'BLE MR. Sri.M.S.Ramachandra PRESIDENT | | | Sri.Chandrashekar S Noola MEMBER | | | Smt.Nandini H Kumbhar MEMBER | |
| |
|
| Dated : 30 Mar 2023 |
| Final Order / Judgement | ORDERS ON POINT OF LIMITATION ON ADMISSION - On perusal of the complaint averments, the question of limitation to file the complaint arises for consideration. Admittedly, the complaint came to be filed by the complainant as against the OPs seeking for the relief of refund of Rs.35,00,000/- which is deposited by the complainant’s father deceased H.R.Suryanarayana Rao, as he is deemed to have availed service from the OP company.
- That it is further observed that deceased Suryanarayana Rao who happens to be the father of the complainant as he entered into agreement with the OP to avail the service by paying a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- and after availing service from the OP for some time, the said Suryanarayana Rao died on 26.07.2020. If at all the complainant being the legal heir he files the complaint after the lapse of limitation of 02 years as stipulated under section 69 of C.P.Act, 2019, when there is a delay in filing the complaint. In the absence of any IA or reasonable cause to condone the delay in filing the complaint. The complaint has to be held as barred by limitation as it is filed beyond the stipulated period of 02 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action.
- It is also very important to note that in the entire complaint averments, complainant has not whispered when the cause of action arises to maintain the present complaint. When such being the fact of the case, the cause of action to file the present complaint will have to be calculated from the date of death of deceased Suryanarayana Rao, who is none other than father of the complainant. As there is delay in filing the complaint and in the absence of any reasonable explanation for the delay, the complaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred by limitation on a discussion.
- On the merits of the complaint, it is also observed that the complainant even though he has filed the present complaint, he has not produced any documents to show that he is the one and only Legal heir to succeed the deceased Suryanarayana Rao and it is also observed that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and OP. As there is no privity of contract between them, the complaint suffered from the legality and the question of locustanty to file the complaint against OP, as a consumer does not arise.
- In view of the above discussions and also by considering the point of limitation, the complaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred by limitation.
ORDER Complaint is rejected as barred by limitation. (RAMACHANDRA M.S.) PRESIDENT (NANDINI H KUMBHAR) (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA) MEMBER MEMBER | |
| |
| | | [HON'BLE MR. Sri.M.S.Ramachandra] | PRESIDENT
| | | | | | [ Sri.Chandrashekar S Noola] | MEMBER
| | | | | | [ Smt.Nandini H Kumbhar] | MEMBER
| | | |
