A complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, cannot be entertained if, on the date the complaint was filed, a suit or application for obtaining relief had become time-barred.

Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—By this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) the opposite party No. 3 questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.7.1990 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 366/89 Telephone. The complainant-respondent submitted a complaint under Section 12 of the Act against (1) Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraph, Udaipur (2) Director Telegraph, Udaipur and (3) District Engineer, Telegraph Udaipur on 18.9.1989. It was alleged that the opposite parties assured to appoint an agent for L.D.P.T. (Long Distance Public Telephone). On demand Note No. 286/75 dated 11.2.1985 a sum of Rs. 300/- was deposited in the office of S.D.O. Telephones Udaipur and a receipt was ob tained. Thereafter an agreement in writing was arrived at between the S.D.O., Telephones and the complainant. That agreement is dated 23.2.1985. The complainant approached the opposite parties for installation of L.D.P.T. connection. He wrote several letters. However, he received letter No. PS/ LD/Kanpur/60dated 27.1.1987 from the Divisional Engineer, Telegraph, Udaipur Circle, Udaipur enclosing account payee cheque No. K 537044 for Rs. 344/-. It was written in that letter that the security amount together with interest is returned. It has been stated by the complainant that he has not encashed the cheque from the Bank. It is said that had the connection being given, he would have received commission @ 40ps.per call and also commission for trunk calls. A period of four years has elapsed but L.D.P.T. instrument was not installed in accordance with the agreement.

2. In para 6 of the complaint it was alleged that the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 4,000/- which he is entitled to get from the opposite parties. It was prayed in the complaint that the opposite parties may be directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 4,000/- and also a direction be given that L.D.P.T. instrument may be installed without delay in accordance with the terms of the agreement and it may be entrusted to the complainant. An unverified affidavit in support of the complaint was filed. Photostat copies of the letters and the agreement were submitted with the complaint.

3. After notice, the S.D.O. Telephones, Udaipur filed the version of the case. In the version of the case it was pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer so as to maintain the complaint. It may be submitted that on 23.2.1985 the complainant respondent for becoming agent of L.D.P.T. filled the form and deposited fee of Rs. 300/-. It was submitted that having regard to the distance from Udaipur and technical feasibility additional cable was not available and there is already L.D.P.T. in Kanpur Post Office and Tandum (parallel) in Gram Lakhad was working there. It was found by the District Engineer that it was not feasible to install L.D.P.T. The amount of Rs. 300/- together with interest was returned. The claim for compensation was denied. A reply was filed to the reply by the complainant on 29.1.1990.

4. The District Forum by the impugned order dated 27.6.1990 directed the opposite parties to install a public telephone in the premises of the complainant within a month in accordance with the terms of agreement and to start its service. An order was made to pay Rs. 200/- as costs. The appellant being dis-satisfied, has filed the appeal.

5. The complainant-respondent submitted a reply/written submissions. This purports to be a reply to the appeal.

6. Arguments of the parties were heard. We have carefully examined the order under appeal and the record in the light of the contentions raised by the parties before us. On going through the record it was noticed that the complaint cannot be entertained on account of the bar of limitation. According to the complainant Rs. 300/- were deposited on 23.2.1985. The agreement was executed on the same day. The complainant as agent wrote letters for installing the telephone L.D.P.T. He is