The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act to bar complaints filed after 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Prasad, President—The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is directed against order dated 18.2.2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/1012/2002—entitled Shri Dowarka Nath Lohtia v. M/s. I.T.C. Limited and Another.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Dowarka Nath Lohtia had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum, the grievance of the appellant, in nut shell, was with regard to non-payment of interest for the delayed redemption payment in respect of redeemable bonds, floated by the respondent No. 1 under Folio No. SL 380 and SL 340. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, it was prayed by the appellant, in the complaint filed by him, that the respondents be directed to make the payment of interest to the appellant for the delayed redemption payment in respect of the above said bonds.

3. The above said complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the same was barred by limitation in terms of provisions of Section 24A of the Act.

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

5. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, it is an admitted fact that the respondent company had sent the warrants for the redemption value of the bonds to the appellant on 27.3.2000 and 19.5.2000. 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 on 9.10.2002. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 24A of the Act it has been provided that the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Thus, in terms of the above provisions there is a specific prohibition, prohibiting redressal agencies, established under the Act at the District Level, State Level and National Level from admitting a complaint unless the same is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the instant case, decidedly, the cause of action had arisen to the appellant soon after the receipt of the warrants from the respondent company on 27.3.2000 and thereafter on 19.5.2000 and, therefore, in terms of the above provisions, the complaint should have been filed within 2 years from the above said dates. The same has been filed much after the expiry of the above said period of 2 years on 9.10.2002. During the course of arguments, the appellant has made a vain attempt by saying that the payment of redemption/overdue interest by the respondent company was not subject to the limitation of 2 years because had it been so, the respondent company would have never paid the redemption amount pertaining to the years 1991 and 1992 in the year 2000. In our opinion, the above contention being advanced by the appellant is devoid of substance in view of the above statutory provisions contained in the Act prohibiting redressal agencies from admitting a complaint unless the same is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. Sub-section (2) of Section 24A of the Act provides that a complaint filed even after the period specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 24A of the Act may be entertained by a redressal agencies established under the Act in case the complainant satisfies the redressal agencies that he had sufficient cause for not filing the