The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act to consumer complaints.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant Smt. Nazni Begum @ Nazru under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated the 15th March, 2002, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 441/2001, entitled Smt. Nazni Begum @ Nazru v. Delhi Vidyut Board.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Smt. Nazni Begum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum. In that complaint, filed by the appellant, the grievance in nutshell was that the appellant, a consumer in respect of electricity connection, bearing K.No. 1242558/DL, installed at RZ-11/92, Gali No. 2, East Sagarpur, New Delhi, had received an inflated bill in respect of billing cycle for March, 1998 (for the period from November, 1997 to March, 1998). It was prayed that the respondent be directed to rectify the same.

3. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent DVB. In the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the complaint had been filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 24-A of the Act.

4. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24-A of the Act and on the above ground has rejected the complaint, filed by the appellant.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in case Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., reported as II (1997) CPJ 36 (NC).

6. On the basis of material on record it is not in dispute that the bill in respect of billing cycle of March, 1998 was received by the appellant on 11th April, 1998. It is also not in dispute that the complaint under Section 12 of the Act had been filed by the appellant before the District Forum in May, 2001. In terms of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 24-A of the Act it has been provided that a redressal agency at the District level, State level or National level, as the case may be, shall not admit a complaint unless the same is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. Sub-section (2) of Section 24-A provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1) if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the said period. wAdmittedly, the cause of action had arisen to the appellant in the present case on 11th April, 1998 when the appellant had received the bill in question and as such in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 24-A of the Act the complaint in respect of such a bill should have been filed within two years. No application showing sufficient cause within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 24-A had been filed before the District Forum. In the presence of the above facts no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is of no help to the case of the appellant, because the same is distinguishable on facts. Moreover, in the above said case repudiation of the claim was made on 25th August, 1994 and on the above ground, the complaint filed on 7th June, 1995, was held to have been filed within limitation. The facts o