Back
2007 (2) CPR 129
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President; Narinder Singh Thakur and Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Members
Himkasth Sale Depot, Nurpor
& Anr.—Complainants
versus
Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala
& Anr.—Opp. Parties
Original Complaint No. 4 of 2003 with MA No. 769 of 2006
Decided on 20-10-2006
Counsel for the parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties:Mr. Mohinder Gautam Vice Mr. Amit Kanwar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in filing the complaint is not condonable, if no cause for the delay is made out.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Filing of complaint—Condonation of delay—Adding of complainant No. 2—Original complainant chose to sleep over the matter—Complainants, least interested to protect interests of complainant No. 2—No cause shown for condoning delay—Complaint, dismissed not being maintainable.
Facts of the Case:
A)Present application under Section 24-A is filed by the complainant No. 2 for condoning the delay in filing the complaint on its behalf. Admittedly, the complainant No. 2 was not originally arrayed as party in the complaint but was added subsequently. By the time complainant No. 2 was added, the 2 years period for filing the complaint was expired. So, the complainant No. 2, now prays for condonation of delay.
B)Original complainants choose to sleep over the matter and were least interested to protect interest of complainant No. 2. There is no cause to condone the delay. A perusal of complaint makes it clear that complainant No. 1 had only acted on behalf of complainant No. 2. That being the position, there was no personal right in his favour to file the same. In these circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
Arun Kumar Goel, (Retd.) Resident —This is an application under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, filed by the complainant No. 2 for condoning the delay in filing the complaint on its behalf.
2. Admittedly complainant No.2 was not originally arrayed as party in a complainant when the complaint was filed. It was added as such vide order dated 3.1.2006 passed in M.A. No.722 of 2005. Thus in our view, for all purposes complaint on behalf of complainant No.2 is to be treated to have been
filed on this date when it was added as a party.
3. Mr. Sharma however stated that with the addition of complainant No. 2, nature of the case or facts are not in any manner altered. This position was contested by Mr. Gautam on behalf of the respondents. He urged that for all purposes the complaint on behalf of complainant No.2 shall be deemed to have been filed on 3.1.2006. On this date complaint by it was barred by limitation. By referring to Section of the Act 24A he prayed for dismissal of this application.
4. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and also have examined
the record of this complaint. Section 24A
was added it w.e.f. 15.3.2003 it reads as under:
“24A Limitation Period— (1) The District Forum, the State Com-mission or the National Com-mission shall not admit a com-plaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Com-mission or the National Com-mission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records
its reasons for condoning such delay.”
5. On a plain reading of sub-section (1) supra, foras under the Act, are precluded from admitting a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action had been arisen. Under sub-section (2) of Section 24A supra, is a complaint which is time barred, for reasonable be recorded delay can be condoned.
6. From the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no plausible, much less reasonable explanation put forth by the complainant No. 2 for condonation of delay in filing the complaint on its behalf and or its not joining the complaint when it was originally filed.
7. In this behalf when a reference is made to the reply filed by the respondents to the complaint, preliminary objection No. 2 clearly speaks of complainant having no right to maintain the complaint because there was no agreement any whatsoever executed between him and the respondent-Bank. It is further clarified in this preliminary objection that agreement was executed between the bank and complainant No. 2. Despite this, reply dated 20.10.2003, original complainant chose to sleep over the matter until filing of M.A. No. 722/2005. This shows that both the complainants were least interested to protect interest of complainant No. 2. Moreover, on a perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 24A along with its proviso, supra speaks that the delay can be condoned in filing a belated complaint on sufficient cause being made. We are of the view that no cause is shown for condoning the delay in filing of the complaint within time on behalf of complainant No. 2.
8. In the order dated 3.1.2006, it was clarified that the respondents can file additional reply to the complaint after impleadment of complainant No. 2 resisting the claim on all grounds under law including newly added complainants’ (i.e. No. 2) complaint being barred by limitation. That being the position, there is no reason, much less cause for condoning the delay. As such so far as the complainant No. 2 is concerned complaint is barred
