National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Kashiprasad Cotton Pvt. … vs Smt. Kamladevi Kanhiyalal … on 3 July, 2006
REVISION PETITION NO
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1144 OF
2005
(From the
order dated 07.03.2005 in Appeal No. 34/05
of the State
Commission, Maharashtra)
1. M/s. Kashiprasad Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Petitioners
Through Director Dinesh Kumar Dokwal
R/O 6-2-57,
Cinema Road, Adilabad
Andhra Pradesh
2. Shree Balaji Industries,
Through Partner Dinesh Kumar Dokwal,
R/O 6-2-57, Cinema Road, Adilabad
Andhra Pradesh
Versus
1. Smt. Kamladevi Kanhiyalal Shrawgi
Through
P.A. Holder Shri (Adv.)
Rameshchandra,
Kanhiyalal Shrawgi
R/o Telhara Tq. Telhara District,
Akola
2. M/s. Kothari Brothers,
Partnership Firm,
Through Partner Nandkishore N. Kothari
R/O Kala
Chabutra Akola Tq. And
District Akola
Respondents
BEFORE :
HONBLE MR.
JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
MRS.
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO,
MEMBER
For the Petitioner s :
Shri R.M. Chandrakav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate
DATED,
THE 3RD JULY,
2006
O R D
E R
JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER
This
revision is directed against the order dated 7.03.05 of Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission Maharashtra, Mumbai dismissing appeal against the order
dated 29.10.04 of a District Forum whereby petitioner No. 1/opposite party No.
2 was directed to refund amount of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a. we.f. 1.10.99 to
respondent No.1/complainant.
Facts giving rise to this revision lie
in narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 had deposited amount of Rs.1 lakh with
petitioner No. 2/opposite party No. 1 through respondent No. 2/opposite party
No. 3 on 26.09.97 for a period of 7 months.
Interest was agreed to be paid @ Rs.1.80% per month. Interest of Rs.4,200/-
was lastly paid on 20.09.99. It was alleged that petitioner no. 2 was
amalgamated with petitioner No. 1 under a Deed of Amalgamation dated
31.03.99 and all the liabilities of
petitioner No. 2 were taken over by petitioner No. 1. Having failed to recover the amount due the
respondent No. 1 got served a legal notice dated 14.05.03 on the petitioners
and thereafter filed complaint on 19.08.03. Complaint was contested by the
petitioners mainly on the grounds that it was barred by limitation and District Forum at
Akola did not
have territorial jurisdiction to try
it. Both these objections decided by the
District Forum against the petitioners which finding was affirmed in appeal by
the State Commission.
Submission advanced by Shri R.M.
Chandrakav for petitioners was that the period of limitation would start
running w.e.f. 9.5.2000 on which date telegraphic notice was sent by respondent
No. 1 to Shree Balaji Industries petitioner No. 2 and complaint filed on
19.08.03 was barred by limitation under Section 24A of C.P. Act, 1986 (for
short the Act) and delay in filing complaint beyond two years could not have
been legally condoned by the fora below without an application by respondent
No.1. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Punjab Urban Development Authority & Anr. Vs. S. Gurjinder Singh & Anr. 2006 (1) CPR 85 (NC) and
Rammesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors.
AIR 1999 SC 3837. It is admitted by the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 was
amalgamated with M/s. Kashiprasad Sons Cotton Pvt. Ltd. petitioner No. 1
under a Deed
of Amalgamation dated 31.03.99.
Omitting immaterial portion, the
letter dated 12.05.2000 (copy at page 85) sent by petitioner No. 1 to
respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 3 M/s. Kothari Brothers is reproduced
below :-
We have to inform you that M/s. Shree Balaji Industries,
Cinema Road, Adilabad has been acquired by M/s. Kashiprasad Sons Cotton Pvt.
Ltd., Adilabad as and from 31.03.99. The
acquirer company shall be responsible for all the liabilities of the acquired
firm. Hence, for the deposit with M/s.
Shree Balaji Industries shall continue to be with the acquirer company on same
terms and conditions.
The following parties have deposited amount with M/s. Shri
Balajee Industries through you. The
letters of information are being sent herewith individually at your address.
Sl.No. Party
1. Sri Deepchand Rajkumar Akola
2. Smt. Kamladevi Kanhiyalal Shravage Akola
3. Sri Mukund Parthasarathy Shukla Akola
4. Shri Keshav Motilal Rathod Akola
5. M/s. Krishna Pulses Akola
6. Sri Gaurav Gupal Rathi Akola
7. Shri Rupesh Rajendra Rathi Akola
8. Dr. Damayanthi Shaukla Akola
9. Smt. Shantadevi Jagdishprasad Khamgaon
Jhangia
10. Sri Madanlal Madhavlal Agarwal (HUF) Akola
11. Sri Sripal Ganeshlal Akola
We request you kindly deliver the same to the respective
parties and oblige.
In this letter the name of
respondent No. 1 appears at Sl. No. 2.
To be only noted that in terms of this letter it was the responsibility
of petitioner No. 1 alone to have paid the deposited amount with balance interest to
respondent No.1. Petitioner No. 1 cannot
take any advantage of the telegraphic notice sent on 9.5.2000 by respondent No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 who
was absolved of the liability of payment after its amalgamation with petitioner
No.1. Respondent No. 1 alleges that
deposited amount with interest was not paid by petitioner No. 1 despite service
of legal notice dated 14.05.03. Thus,
for the purpose of filing complaint the limitation would start running against
petitioner No. 1 w.e.f. 14.05.03 and complaint filed on 19.08.03 was well within limitation. As may be seen
from para 9 of the impugned order the State Commission was of the view that
respondent No. 1 had pardonable excuse
and delay, if any, can, therefore, be legitimately condoned.
It did not return the finding that complaint was barred by
limitation. Submission referred to above
advanced on behalf of
petitioners is, therefore, repelled being without any merit. Aforesaid two decisions have no applicability
to the facts of present case. Revision
petition, thus, deserves to be dismissing
being without any substance. Dismissed as such with cost of Rs.5000/- to respondent No. 1.
.J.
( K.S. GUPTA )
PRESIDING MEMBER
..
( RAJYALAKSHMI RAO )
MEMBER
YD/*