Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—The District Forum, Jalandhar aide order dated July 2, 1996 allowed the complaint filed by Niranjan Singh with the directions to the opposite parties M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. the manufacturer and P.C. Jain, Proprietor, V.K. Automobiles its dealer to pay a sum of Rs. 11165.44 with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. the date of deposit i.e. November 7, 1987 till payment alongwithRs.500/- as costs of the litigation. The amount was deposited by the complainant, Niranjan Singh, a retired Head Master of Nakodar with the dealer as full price of Bajaj Chetak Scooter manufactured by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The manufacturer had issued a letter of allotment in favour of the complainant with the direction to the dealer to deliver the scooter. The amount was deposited on November 7, 1987 vide receipt No. 146. The date of delivery of the scooter was postponed from time-to-time by the dealer. A letter was written by the dealer to the complainant on February 8, 1989 that the complainant could take delivery of the scooter. In spite of that the scooter was not delivered though the complainant paid several visits. Ultimately, the complainant approached the manufacturer who vide letter dated June 6, 1993 informed the complainant that the matter was under consideration with correspondence with the dealer. Having tired in the matter of getting the scooter after payment of the entire price for couple of years, he approached the District Forum with the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act in December, 1993 with the direction to me opposite parties to deliver the scooter, and in case they were unable to do so to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. He also claimed a sum of Rs. 1000/- only as compensation on account of loss and mental torture. On notice of the complaint, the manufacturer, the appellant filed written statement taking preliminary objections. The com- plaint was not maintainable; the complainant was estopped from filing the complaint. The complainant did not approach the District Forum with clean hands and had concealed true facts; the complaint was barred by time; there was no promise or contract between the complainant and the manufacturer. On merits, the facts relating to booking of the scooter on deposit of the money with the dealer was simply denied but not specifically as such facts related to opposite party No. 2, the dealer. There was no specific denial with respect to writing letter dated June 6, 1993. It was asserted mat the price of the scooter was paid to opposite party No. 2, the dealer and there was no direct payment made by the complainant to the manufacturer. Thus, the manufacturer was not to refund the amount or delivered the scooter to the complainant. No written statement was filed by the dealer. The complainant filed affidavit of his father Surjit Singh and the documents, receipt for depositing Rs. 11165.44 on November 7,1987, copy of the letter of V.K. Automobiles dated February 1, 1989, postponing the date of delivery to March 1, 1989, copy of the letter from Bajaj Auto Ltd. dated June 6,1993 to the effect that the matter was being looked into by referring the complaint to the concerned personal. No affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties was filed and no documents were tendered. The District Forum passed the impugned order as referred to above. The appeal is only by the manufacturer. The dealer has not filed any appeal, although the order was passed against both the opposite parties. Since, no appeal has been filed by the dealer, the order against him would remain intact.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, the manufacturer has pressed into service all the technical pleas which were taken up in the preliminary objections. It has been argued that the cause of action accrued on March 1,1989, the date of delivery communicated to the complain- ant as mentioned in the complaint itself. The present complaint having been filed on December 10,1993 is barred by time in view of S