Mr. S.K.M. Lodha, President—The only point involved in this appeal is whether the District Forum, Bikaner was right in dismissing the complaint of the complainant-appellant on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The complainant- appellant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 7.8.199 0 passed by the District Forum. The appeal has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties-respondents on 17.7.1989. The complainant has alleged that he is a subscriber of telephone No. 648 and has been paying rent regularly. His telephone was dead on 18.4.1987. He made a complaint for removing the fault to Opposite Party No.1. Thereupon, the employees of the Department came and went back and told him that, the wires in the street are broken and the telephone would be in order as soon as the wires are connected. The fault of the telephone was not removed upto 22.4.1987. Thereupon he submitted a detailed complaint marked as (Annexure 1). It is said that on account of this complaint, Opposite Party No. 1 developed malice against him and the telephone was put out of order time and again. He was told that either he should withdraw the complaint otherwise he will be deprived of the telephone. As no enquiry was done, the complainant made a complaint on 12.9.1987. It is said that a letter dated 12.9.1987 was got written by the complainant. In order to harass the complainant a surcharge was levied on the telephone on 16.8.87 in respect of which the complainant submitted Annexures 3 & 4. He again made complaints as he was deprived of the use of telephone again and again (Annexures 5 & 7). He submitted a complaint about surcharge marked as Annexure 8 Reminders were sent which are Annexures 9 & 10. Telephone Bill dated 1.5.1989 was sent to the complainant about which the complaints were lodged (Annexures 11 & 12). It is said that deliberately excess amount was recorded. Again complaints were sent marked as Annexures 13 & 14. A notice marked as Annexure 15 was also sent.

3. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties without any good reason are determined to recover surcharge from him and to deprive him from the use of the telephone. He was deprived of the trunk calls on 8.4.1989. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss, mental agony and bodily harassment. It was also prayed that the opposite parties may be bound not to behave in the manner in which they behaved with the complainant.

4. The opposite parties resisted the complaint on various grounds. One of the objection that was taken was that the complaint relates to the year 1987. There was enough time from 1987 to 1989 available to the subscriber to get his complaint registered in the complaint Section. The complaint as filed on 17.7.89 before the District Forum is barred by limitation and hence it is not maintainable.

5. Various documents and affidavits were filed. It is not necessary to refer them as the District Forum held that the complaint of the complainant-appellant is governed by Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as the complaint was filed after the expiry of period prescribed, therein, it deserves to be dismissed.

6. Aggrieved the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal against the dismissal of the complaint. We heard Mr. S.C. Mittal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. U.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents and carefully examined the complaint, the version of the case and the documents filed by the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum went completely wrong when it held that the complaint is barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act. The complaint has been filed on the allegations made in it and the reliefs sought are not barred under the Limitation Act. Mr. U.D. Sharma, learned Counsel for the opposite parties-respo