Mrs. Rachna, Member—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 246/1999.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant had deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 19.1.1995 under the Golden Fixed Deposit Scheme floated by the opposite party, Sahara India for a period of one year i.e. from 19.1.1995 to 18.1.1996. The complainant made several efforts to get her matured amount back but to no avail. Thereafter, she filed a claim before the District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar for getting the maturity amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and also claimed compound interest upon the entire amount with effect from 19.1.1999. She also claimed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost.

3. Inspite of sufficient notice the opposite parties were not present before the District Forum, hence the case was decided ex-parte by the learned District Forum. The complainant has tendered her original certificate and receipt and filed an affidavit. After perusal of all the documents, the learned District Forum has came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, hence it directed that opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, Rs. 2,000/- for damages alongwith the cost of Rs. 1,000/- within 30 days of the receipt of its order by the opposite party.

4. Aggrieved against this order, the opposite party, Sahara India has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as complainant who was present in person. In the present appeal the appellant has challenged the order passed by the District Forum on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation. In this connection, we have perused the order of District Forum in which no objection was raised by the opposite party as they did not file their written statement nor put in their appearance though they had the knowledge of the case as well as the date as admitted by the opposite party in the memo of appeal in para 7. If the complaint was barred by the limitation, the case should have been contested before the District Forum. The District Forum has taken the cognizance of the case as the matter was pending and the complainant had been reminding the opposite party to make the payment but when no payment was made by the opposite parties the complaint was filed in the year 1999, though under Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act the limitation is of two years and according to it the complaint should have been filed by January, 1998 but the complaint was filed in 1999, when the efforts of the complainant failed to get the money back, thereafter District Forum has ignored the delay and passed the order under appeal. Once the delay has been condoned by the District Forum or this point has been ignored by the District Forum then this point should not be raised before the State Commission. The order passed by the District Forum should not be interfered on this ground as was held in view of the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation v. Nagpur Handloom Corporation, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1192. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the High Court have condoned the delay according to its discretion even if the grounds for condonation may not be adequate, the discretion exercised for condonation of delay should not be interfered with in the appeal or writ petition against the said order. Thus, this plea of delay in the filing complaint before, the District Forum at the appellate stage has no force and accordingly turned down.

6. Once the lower Court has taken the cognizance of the case and no specific objection was raised by the opposite party having information of the date of hearing of the case, therefore, at this stage in appeal no ob