Ram Lal Gupta, Member - The appellant before us is the complainant before the District Forum. Faridkot, who is challenging the order dated 21-6-1996 passed by the District Forum. At the time of hearing, both the parties have chosen not to appear but we cannot afford not to decide the case on merits.

2. The facts are few, The District Forum has dismissed the complaint as being time barred. The salient facts on which the complaint was dismissed is time barred as reproduced in para 7 of the impugned order of District Forum. The main grouse of the complainant is that the opposite party has failed to repair the TV set purchased by him on 15-7 -1992. In the month of August, 1992, he lodged a complaint with the opposite party and thereafter he left the T.V. set at the shop of the opposite party situated at Muktsar and after 4/5 months, he took it back without any repairs being done. The complaint was sent to the District Forum by post, which was received in the Forum on 29-4-1995. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint received after the expiry of about 2 years from the expiry of warranty period of more than two years, from the date of cause of action accrued to the complainant, cannot be entertained and the same is time barred.

3. Though it is not mentioned in the impugned order of the District Forum, we are assuming that the District Forum has dismissed the complaint in view of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986(hereinafter called as the Act). Section 24A of the Act was inserted vide Act No. 50 of 1993 which came into force on 18-4-1993. Before the insertion of Section 24A of the Act there was no period of limitation prescribed under the Act. By judicial interpretation it was held in catena of judgments by the National Commission that the period of limitation for filing the complaint would be three years as per residuary article of Limitation Act. In the case in hand, the cause of action earliest has accrued to the complainant on 15-7-1992 and continued thereafter. From reading of Section 24A of the Act, it cannot be legitimately inferred that the period of limitation of three years for the causes of action accrued before the insertion of the said Section would be reduced to two years as encapsulate under the present section. According to our view, the period of limitation for the complaints for which the cause of action has accrued before the insertion of the said section would continue to be three years to be reckoned from the date it has accrued.

4. In view of this, we hold that the order of District Forum, dismissing the complaint filed on 19-4-1995 for the T.V. set purchased on 15-7-1992 as time barred is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present appeal and set aside the impugned order of the District Forum, Faridkot dated 21-6-1996 and remand the case to the District Forum, Faridkot for decision on merit in accordance with law. The District Forum shall send the notices to the parties on receipt of this order. No order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.