IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of ten years in filing of complaint cannot be condoned.

Rekha Gupta, Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11th January 2012 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (the “State Commission”) in appeal no. 1316 of 2010.

2. The brief facts of the complaint as per the petitioner are as follows:

The respondents approached the petitioner’s wife Smt Jageshwari Devi, 227/288 but 288/240/1 Laxmi Sadan, Arya Nagar, Lucknow 226 004 (Uttar Pradesh) and got deposited amount and issued a letter as detailed below:

Reg. no. 1, 7463, LET No. 1 74970

Deposit No. IUCC 1031291, Interest rate 14%

Amount of Deposit is Rs. 11,715/-

Interest amount Rs. 803/-

Interest from date 25.04.1998

Pre – Maturity Date 15.10.1998

Warrant no. 25302

Interest amount payable Rs. 12,559/-

The respondents failed to pay back the amount as per promise letter.

3. The correspondence and personal approach at the local office at Lucknow with the respondents, application sent registered A/D letter under RTI Act, 2005 enclosing Indian Postal Order no. 57 E 74 8949 on 06.05.2009 but the respondent did not acknowledge the letter and also did not care to give any information till date.

4. A complaint was filed with a delay of more than 10 years. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – I, Lucknow (the ‘District Forum) are as follows:

“The amount of deposit with interest as per promise of the defendants after maturity date was payable on 15.10.1998.

In spite of all efforts, defendants failed to comply with their own promise. The delay caused due to above reasons and other unavoidable circumstances”.

5. The District Forum vide order dated 20th July 2010 dismissed complaint by stating as follows:

“Shri Om Prakash complainant in person complained that he moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the complaint.

It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that the amount of deposit with interest as per promise of the opposite parties after maturity date was payable on 15.10.1998, but inspite of all efforts, the defendants failed to comply their promise then the complainant sent notice to the opposite parties on 03.10.2009, but the opposite parties gave no weight on notice then the complainant filed this complaint. As such it appears that cause of action arose on 15.10.1998 whereas the complainant has filed this complaint today. It is settled law that delay cannot be condoned on the basis of letter or notice. The complainant has filed no affidavit in support of his application. As such from the perusal of file, it appears that complainant has failed to explain the delay in filing the complaint, therefore, complainant’s application under Section 5 Limitation is hereby rejected”.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal no. 1316 of 2010 before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal by stating as follows:

“Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the limitation issue and we find that the complainant of the appellant having been filed more than 10 years after the due date of repayment was really barred by limitation. It was a case of huge delay of one decade while in the case of limitation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in JT 210 (6) SC 205, it was a case of minor delay. The said citation is, therefore, not attracted.

Moreover, the citation did not relate to a consume case rather it was a matter of auction and confirmation of the sale. The said principle will not come into application to the cases of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 24 A of the Act postulates that a complaint filed more than two years after the cause of action had arisen would be barred by time. The complainant of course could have explained ten years of delay but except that he kept on asking for his money during the period of 10 years, no other explanation has be