Chandrashekaraiah, President—Parties in this order are referred to as they are referred to in the impugned order.

2. This appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint.

3. The facts in this case are as follows:

The complainant filed the complaint against the opposite party (for short the “O.P.”) alleging “Deficiency in Service”. The complainant is a practising Advocate. The O.P. is his auditor. The O.P. prepared the Income Returns in respect of the complainant for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 and filed the same before the Income Tax Authorities. According to the complainant, the said returns were filed by the O.P. hurriedly. The Income Tax Officer made certain queries regarding payment of Rs. 3,00,000 made by the complainant to a vendor under an agreement of sale under which the complainant agreed to purchase some immovable property. In this regard, the O.P. advised the complainant to file a form under ‘Voluntary Declaration of Income Scheme’ (for short “VDIS”). Accordingly, the O.P. filed the VDIS form signed by the complainant explaining the source of income so as to pay the above said sum of Rs. 3,00,000 to the Vendor. Ultimately, the Income Tax Officer did not accept the explanation offered by the complainant and passed an order against the interest of the complainant. That order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The further case of the complainant is that the O.P. had not come forward to hand over the file to the complainant though the complainant requested the O.P. to that effect. Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging “deficiency in service” on the part of the O.P.

4. Before the District Forum, the O.P. filed his version denying the averments made in the complaint. The case of the O.P. is that he prepared the Income-tax Returns and the VDIS form as per the instructions given by the complainant and, therefore, just because the order passed by the Income Tax Officer went against the complainant, the complainant filed a false complaint against him alleging deficiency in service. The further averment made by the O.P. in his version is that even though the complainant was called upon to take back the file he did not come and take back the file and, therefore, there is no truth in the allegation that the O.P. refused to hand over the file to the complainant. The O.P. has also taken up the plea that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation.

5. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, the District Forum formulated three points for consideration. One of the points whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

6. From the facts it is seen that the complainant alleged deficiency in service insofar as the income returns for the years 1995-96 to 1997-98 are concerned and also relating to non-disclosure of source of income regarding payment of money by the complainant under the agreement of sale of the year 1997. From these facts it is clear that the cause of action for the complainant arose prior to the year 1998 itself. But the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum in the year 2003, i.e., after a lapse of five years. Taking this fact into consideration the District Forum is right in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation.

7. The complainant who appeared in person was not able to persuade us how the district Forum was in error in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation.

8. Even on merits also the District Forum has considered the case of complainant. The case of the complainant is that the O.P. has not properly advised the complainant while filing the Income Tax Returns and the VDIS form. The complainant is a practicsing Advocate. Being a practising Advocate he ought to have disclosed the source of income regarding payment of Rs. 3,00,000 to the vendor under the agreement of sale. On the other hand, t