BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.185 of 2021
Date of Instt. 19.05.2021
Date of Decision:09.02.2023
Saurav Ahuja aged about 34 years S/o Late Sh. Pawan Kumar R/o H. No.12, New Raja Garden, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL), SCO No.13, Ground Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Part-I, Jalandhar through its Manager/Incharge etc.
2. M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL), having its registered office Warden House, Second Floor, Sir PM Road, Fort Mumbai, through its Managing Director/Director/Manager/Incharge etc.
3. M/s DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered office 4th Floor, Building No.98, Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director/Director/Manager/Incharge etc.
….….. Opposite Parties
Application for dismissal of the complaint.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for Applicant/OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. APS Pathania, Adv. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. Today, the Member/Jyotsna is on leave. Heard on the application filed by OPs No.1 & 2 for dismissal of the complaint.
2. The OPs No.1 & 2 has alleged that on the basis of the loan taken by Pawan Kumar Ahuja on 21.01.2014, the earlier complaint was filed by the LRs of the deceased Pawan Kumar. Earlier complaint was instituted on 22.11.2016 and was decided on 08.05.2019 with the observation that the present Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Now again the complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of same cause of action on 02.06.2021, which is not maintainable as the matter has already been decided by the Predecessor of this Forum and the present complaint is barred by the time. The request has been made to dismiss the complaint.
3. In reply to the application, it has been alleged that the present application is not maintainable. It has been alleged that the earlier complaint was decided by the Predecessor of this Forum that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and the complainant was advised to file the complaint before the appropriate Forum. Thereafter, the new Act was enforced and the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum was enhanced, therefore this Commission is competent to try and decide the present dispute having pecuniary jurisdiction. It has further been alleged that as per the order passed by the Predecessor of this Commission, the period spent during the litigation from 22.11.2016 to 08.05.2019 is excluded from the limitation period, therefore, the present complaint is legally maintainable. The application be dismissed.
4. It is not disputed that the deceased Pawan Kumar took a loan from the OPs No.1 & 2 on 25.01.2014 and mortgaged his property. It is also not disputed rather proved that the complainant filed the complaint on the basis of the claim filed by the present complainant after the death of Pawan Kumar when the claim was declared as ‘no claim’ by the OP No.3. As per order dated 08.05.2019 passed by the Predecessor of this Commission, it was observed that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the amount of the claim of the complainant is more than Rs.23,00,000/-, whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum is only upto Rs.20,00,000/-. So, in view of this fact, the complaint was ordered to be returned to the complainant alongwith original documents with liberty to file the fresh complaint before the appropriate Forum and it was also ordered that the complainant will get the benefit of the law of limitation, for the period consumed by the complainant before this Forum, accordingly, the complaint was disposed of.
5. Now the complaint was disposed of on 08.05.2019. The loan was obtained by the father of the complainant on 21.01.2014 and the claim of the complainant was declared as no claim by OP No.3 on 18.05.2016. This shows that cause of action arose to the complainant on 18.05.2016 and the previous complaint was filed on 22.11.2016, which was decided on 08.05.2019. As per the order passed by the Forum dated 08.05.2019, the period from 22.11.2016 to 08.05.2019 was to be exempted as per the law of limitation during which the complaint remained pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar. Admittedly, the order dated 08.05.2019 was never challenged by the complainant nor any complaint was ever filed by the complainant before the appropriate Forum as per order dated 08.05.2019. Now after two years i.e. on 19.05.2021, the present complaint has been filed on the ground that since the new consumer laws have been framed and under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission is upto rupees 1 crore, as such, the present complaint was filed. Even in the reply to the present application, it has been alleged by the complainant that the period of litigation from 22.11.2016 to 08.05.2019 is to be excluded from the said limitation period. It has nowhere been explained by the complainant as to why the complainant has filed the present complaint after two years of the order passed by the Forum, if this Forum was having pecuniary jurisdiction as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019. New Act came into force in the year 2019, but the present complaint was filed in the year 2021 and there is no explanation for filing the present complaint after the lapse of two years. No fresh cause of action arose to the complainant for filing the present complaint within two years of new cause of action. Nothing has been mentioned even in the complaint that fresh cause of action has arisen to the complainant. So, the complaint is not maintainable being time barred and accordingly, the application is allowed and the complaint is dismissed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
09.02.2023 Member President
