IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant has no sweet will so far as question of limitation is concerned.

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member—Counsel for the complainant present. Arguments heard. The complainant has filed an application for condonation of delay. It is not mentioned that when the cause of action had arisen. On 05.02.2008, Smt. Sudha Shrotria filed a complaint on the same cause of action on the unfair trade practices etc. under MRTP Act (since repealed) before the MRTP Commission (RTPE No. 4/2008). Thereafter, the proceedings were transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal. On 02.12.2013, the complainant moved an application for withdrawal of this case. The Hon’ble Chairperson, Competition Appellate Tribunal passed the following order:-

“After considerable arguments, the applicant seeks to withdraw this complaint with the liberty for approaching this matter with National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission (NCDRC). It is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the other side. However, considering the nature of evidence, nature of allegations and the proof supported by the complainant here, we deem it fit to give that permission. Needless to say that the pendency before this Tribunal is requested to be considered while considering the question of limitation.

2. This is a case of medical negligence. It is explained that the Complainant had spent 5 years, 10 months, 27 days in the above said tribunals. The present matter falls within the purview of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is explained that the said delay should be condoned. 3. We have heard the counsel for the complainant at length. There is no problem in condoning the delay before the MRTP and Competition Appellate Tribunal. The complainant is entitled to have condonation of that delay.

4. However, it is note-worthy that the Competition Appellate Tribunal did not grant any time for filing this complaint before this Commission. Normally it is either 15 days or 30 days. We are bound to accept the order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, but by no stretch of imagination, it can be laid-down that the complainant has got as much time as she desires to file this complaint. She has no sweet will so far as question of limitation is concerned. The complaint should have been filed within reasonable time. Day to day delay should have been explained. As in the case of Revision Petition, one should have filed this Complaint, within 90 days, if no time was fixed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The Competition Appellate Tribunal passed the order on 02.12.2013. This case was filed before this Commission on 16.07.2014. Even if 90 days are deducted, there is a delay of 135 days (225 days minus 90days). That delay was never explained. The application in question is conspicuously silent about this crucial aspect. Filing of this complaint is clearly barred by limitation.

5. It must be borne in mind that as per Section 3 (a) of Section 13, this provision of Law envisages that complaint has to be decided within five months. Complainant has taken more than five months in filing this complaint. The complainant did not utter a word, whisper or syllable recording the delay of these days. The complainant does not have unlimited time to file the Complaint.

6. This view finds support from the authority reported in the case “Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) it has been held that “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

7. In State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries 2009(3) CPR 107 (SC): 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) : JT 2009 (4) SC 191. the apex Court, while