G.G. Sohani, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.6.1994 passed by the District Forum, Seoni in Case No. 32/93.

2. Briefly the complainant's case was that the complainant was allotted a flat under hire purchase scheme by the opponent, that there were certain defects in construction of the flat, and that the opponent was illegally demanding certain amount which was not due from the complainant. The claim was resisted by the opponent inter alia on the grounds that it was barred by limitation and that the question as to what amount was due from the complainant was pending for consideration in proceedings for eviction against the complainant instituted by the opponent under Section 55 of the M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972. These objections were upheld by the District Forum and the complaint was dismissed. Hence, the complainant has filed this appeal.

3. Having heard- learned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. As regards claim for compensation on account of defects in the construction of the flat possession of which was delivered to the complainant, it was not disputed before us that while the possession of the flat was obtained by the complainant on 24.4.1987, the complaint was filed on 28.7.1993. We may usefully refer to the following observations of the National Commission in M/s. Indu Video Films(P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank & others:

"It has been repeatedly held by this Commission that though the Limitation Act has not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the forums constituted under the Act should not entertain and adjudicate upon stale claims."

In view of the aforesaid observations, the District Forum was justified in holding that the claim made by the complainant was stale and was barred by limitation.

4. The other question raised by the appellant with regard to correctness of the amount alleged to be due from the complainant to the respondent, is pending for consideration before the Authority in proceedings under Section 55 of the M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972. If according to the complainant the amount alleged to be due from him was not legally due, then be can take that plea in defence while resisting the claim for eviction made by the respondent before the competent authority. In view of pendency of those proceedings before the competent authority, the District Forum was justified in refusing to entertain the claim made by the complainant in that behalf. We see no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.