Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President — We do not find any merit in this appeal. The State Commission has given valid and cogent reasons for holding that the appellant, who was the Complainant before it, is not entitled to any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The findings of fact entered by the State Commission are fully warranted by the materials which were available before it. Even if the facts set out in the complaint are assumed, for purposes of discussion, to be true, still no case for interference under the Consumer Protection Act is made out inasmuch as there is no case of deficiency in service brought out by the Complainant. The State Commission was also fully justified in observing that the complaint was highly belated in as much as the allotment by draw of lots, which is said to have caused the grievance to the complainant, took place as early as in October, 1983, whereas the compliant was filed before the State Commission only on 15th December, 1988. The complaint was, therefore, liable to be rejected on this short ground alone. We, accordingly, affirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

–