Important point
Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act expressly cast a duty on Consumer Fora to dismiss complaint if filed after 2 years of cause of action for the complaint unless complaint satisfied Fora that by sufficient cause he was prevented from filing complaint in time.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12, 17 and 24A—Deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of booth site in public auction—Auction was held in 1986 and allotment was made in 1987—Complaint filed in 1997 before State Commission alleged deficiency in allotment of less area than advertised and placement of in corridor creating harassment and health hazard—State Commission accepted the claim of respondent and awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs—National Commission upheld some of bhatties the findings on deficiency in service and upheld the award—Appeal—Forums below failed to look into the limitation aspect of the case—Possession of booth site was given in 1987 and bhatties were allegedly placed in 1989 and removed in 1994—Complaint filed in 1997 was barred by limitation—There was no prayer for condonation of delay—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
Held : Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly cast a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. The Section debars any fora set up under Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had considered the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the claim of the respondent was barred by time. According to the complaint filed by the respondent, the cause of action arose when, according to the respondent, possession was received of the booth site and it was allegedly found that an area less than the area advertised had been given. This happened in January, 1987. Furthermore, the bhatties which were alleged to have caused loss and damage to the respondent, as stated in the complaint, had been installed before 1989 and removed in 1994. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent in 1997, ten years after the taking of possession, eight years after the cause of alleged damage commenced and three years after that cause ceased. There was not even any prayer by the respondent in his complaint for condoning the delay. Therefore, the claim of the respondent on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, was clearly barred by limitation as the two year period prescribed by Section 24A of the Act had expired much before the complaint was admitted by the State Commission. This finding is sufficient for allowing the appeal. Moreover, the National Commission proceeded on the incorrect factual basis that the bhatties had been removed during the pendency of the appeal before it. The finding was contrary to the records. As we have said, according to the complaint itself, the offending bhatties had already been removed in 1994 three years before the complaint was filed by the respondent. Apart from this there was no basis for the Commission to have awarded to Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent by way of compensation. (Paras 9 to 12)

Judgment

Ruma Pal, J.—Leave granted.

2. In this appeal an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “National Commission”) is challenged to the extent that the National Commission had awarded two lacs compensation which was to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

3. The appellant held an auction of booth sites plots/building at No. 90, Sector 9 at Panchkula on free hold basis in 1986. The respondent bid for one booth/site plot which was accepted by the appellant. An allotment letter was issued on 12th January, 1987 to the respondent in which it was mentioned that the allotted area of the booth/ site was 45.37 sq. meters including the side verandah at a price of Rs. 2,53,000/- which could be paid in instalments. After adjusting the earnest money deposited, the respondent was required to pay the balance of 25% of the price of the plot within 30 days upon which the possession of the booth site would be given. The balance amount of the purchase price of Rs. 1,89,750.00 was payable in ten half yearly instalments, the first of which was payable after the expiry of six months. In terms of the allotment letter the last instalment was payable on 12th December, 1991. The allotment letter also mentioned that each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10% interest on the remaining amount which would start to accrue from the date of offer of possession of the said booth.

The respondent admittedly did not pay all the instalments. The total amount paid was Rs. 1,45,790/-, leaving outstanding a sum of Rs. 2,03,580/- inclusive of interest calculated upto 12th November, 1991. The appellant issued several notices of demand to the respondent. According to the appellant, pursuant to one of the notices, the respondent had appeared on 18th December, 1991 and promised to pay the outstanding dues by 31st December, 1992. However, no payment was made. Ultimately the appellant issued a notice on 31st May, 1996 to the respondent demanding payment.

4. On 6th April, 1997 the respondent filed a complaint before the State Consumer Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in which the respondent claimed an order directing the setting aside of the notice of demand dated 31st May, 1996. They also asked for removal of the “deficiencies” in the booth and for compensation on account of damage to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs for the appellant’s alleged gross failure in discharging their legal duties which had allegedly “caused extensive losses in terms of business, health, mental peace, family up-bringing, education of children etc.” of the respondent and for an amount on account of “extreme deficiency of service” on the appellant’s part.

The deficiencies alleged in the complaint were as follows:

a) the booth of which possession was given by the appellant measured only 2.75 x 8.25 sq. mts. as against the advertised area of 5.5 x 8.25 sq. mts.

b) unauthorized bhatties had been kept in the verandah of the neighbouring shop which had seriously affected the health and business of the respondent.

c) The appellant had unauthorisedly sanctioned a STD/PCO in front of the respondent’s booth due to which the respondent had lost the advantage of having purchased a corner booth.

5. The appellant filed an affidavit before the State Commission countering the submissions in the respondent’s complaint and stating that the complaint was barred by time. On the merits it was said that the respondent had been given possession of 5.5 sq.mts. x 8.25 sq.mts. after which the respondent had constructed the booth at the corner site. As far as the bhatties were concerned, it was stated that they had already been removed. In connection with the allegations regarding the sanction of STD/PCO booth, it was stated that the same had been constructed far away from the booth of the respondent. It was submitted that there was no deficiency in the services and the respondent had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1410

Important pointSection 24A of Consumer Protection Act expressly cast a duty on Consumer Fora to dismiss complaint if filed after 2 years of cause of action for the complaint unless complaint satisfied Fora that by sufficient cause he was prevented from filing complaint in time.

Important point
Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act expressly cast a duty on Consumer Fora to dismiss complaint if filed after 2 years of cause of action for the complaint unless complaint satisfied Fora that by sufficient cause he was prevented from filing complaint in time.