Judgment:
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
These revision petitions challenge the order dated 24.08.2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner (in short, œthe State Commission?) in appeals no. 1 and 2 of 2011 filed by respondent no. 1. By this common order, both the appeals (involving the same issue) were allowed and the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu (in short, œthe District Forum?) in complaints no. 82 and 83 of 2010 were set aside. For the same reason both these revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2 (i) The facts in RP no. 3775 of 2011 are that the petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party (OP) no. 1 (respondent no. 1 in both these petitions) in that it failed to get the tractor purchased by the petitioner in February 2002 duly registered with the Transport Authority concerned and insured though the petitioner had paid Rs.11,000/- for insurance and registration of the said tractor. The petitioner/complainant also claimed that he repaid the entire loan for purchasing the tractor to respondent no. 2 by 09.02.2009. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner was that respondent no. 1 had failed to provide the service of getting the tractor purchased from it duly registered and insured, despite accepting the requisite consideration for meeting these statutory requirements.
(ii) The facts and allegations in RP no. 3776 of 2011 are identical except that the petitioner/complainant purchased the tractor on 16.08.2002 and repaid the loan to the respondent bank by 23.01.2009 and paid Rs.10,000/- to respondent no. 1 for getting the tractor registered and insured.
3. After considering the pleadings, evidence, etc., the District Forum allowed both the complaints with the direction to respondent/opposite party (OP) no. 1 to return to each complainant the temporary registration certificate and provide the original bill on its letter pad for registration of the tractor. Respondent/OP 1 was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to each petitioner/complainant for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of litigation, within one month of the date of the order. However, the complaint against OP no. 2 (the bank in question) was dismissed.
4. In its impugned order, the State Commission noticed that though in each case the tractor was purchased by the petitioner concerned sometime in early 2002, he filed the complaint before the District Forum in 2009, i.e., after nearly seven years. The complaints were thus hopelessly time barred and could not have been entertained by the District Forum. The common contention of the petitioners was that they being rural farmers and ignorant, were under the impression that the tractors had been registered and insured and the relevant documents had been handed over to the financing Bank (respondent no. 2) by respondent no. 1. Therefore, they approached the Bank concerned only after re-payment of the loan in early 2009 to retrieve the documents when they were told by respondent no. 2 that no such documents had been handed over by respondent no. 1. The State Commission held that the submissions of the petitioners (respondents before it) could not be accepted for want of any document regarding payment of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. Further, neither petitioner/complainant was able to clarify why he remained quiet for seven long years after purchase of the tractor to make even an enquiry with either respondent no. 1 or respondent no. 2 about the status of registration and insurance of the tractor. The State Commission further held that issuing a legal notice in 2009 could not extend the span of time of the cause of action and, therefore, the District Forum erred in entertaining these complaints. The District Forum has condoned the delay in filing the case in both the cases only on the ground that the petitioners/complainants are from rural area. This cannot be considered sufficient cause under the provisions of section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The view taken by the State Commission is thus appropriate and in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs B. S. Agricultural Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121]. This view was again reiterated by the Apex Court itself in two more recent cases, viz., Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. vs National Insurance Co. and Another [(2009) 7 SCC 768] and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr.) vs Anita Sena Fernandes [(2011) 1 SCC 53].
5. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners/complainants. He has essentially repeated the same submissions which were made before the State Commission. On careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record, I find no reason to disagree with the State Commission.
6. The revision petitions are dismissed because the petitioners have not succeeded in establishing any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned order of the State Commission.