The main legal point established in the judgment is the peremptory nature of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in requiring complaints to be filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.

ORDER

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Aggrieved by order dated 5.12.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short 'state Commission'), appellant/complainant has filed this First Appeal against respondents/opposite parties..

2. Brief facts are that appellant raised loan on 6.12.2006 for Rs. 34,62,750 from respondent No. 1. Appellant handed over two blank cheques to respondent No. 1, stating the same to be by way of security towards repayment of outstanding loan, with an understanding that cheques would not be presented for encashment without consent and notice to the appellant. It is further alleged that despite appellant making regular payment towards repayment, respondent No. 1 started harassing it. Further, respondent No. 1 in an arbitrary manner directed appellant to remove the stocks from warehouse within seven days from the issuance of their letter dated 29.8.2007. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1, recalled their loan amount vide their notice, dated 8.12.2007. Respondent No. 1 did not even permit the officials of appellant to enter the cold storage for operating the freezing unit and this caused loss to the vegetable stored in the cold storage, which were destroyed. Appellant even requested for settlement of account subject to respondent releasing the entire stocks of appellant and further agreeing to pay 10% of the amount on acceptance of OTS and balance 90% with interest in six equal instalments. Vegetable stored started giving foul smell, because of being destroyed. Matter was taken up with the administration. In the meanwhile, respondent presented the cheques, which were dishonoured and consequently respondent also filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The administration constituted a committee, which opened the locks of cold storage for the purpose of removing the destroyed vegetables. Material in the shape of green peas weighing 1,45,500 kg., amounting to Rs. 43,65,000 was damaged. Alleging it as deficiency in service, complaint was filed. Cause of action was stated to have arisen on 29.8.2008 when the committee appointed by Deputy Commissioner headed by SDM, opened the cold storage.

3. Appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act ) on 28.11.2011. Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 454 days was also filed. Delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that, papers were given to Shri Pardeep Gupta and Ashok Gupta, Advocates who had agreed to file the complaint within time. A letter was also sent by the appellant through UPC to know the position of the case but they did not file the complaint.

4. State Commission, vide its impugned order dismissed the complaint of the appellant as the same was barred by time prescribed under Section 24-A of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, appellant has filed the present appeal.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. In support, learned Counsel cited following judgments:

(i) Harpreet Singh Kohli and Anr. v. Neelu Estate and Movers Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 4 CPJ 28 (NC);

(ii) N. Balakrishanan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123; and

(iii) State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan, Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2006, decided by Apex Court.

7. As per averments made in the appeal, delay in filing of the complaint was unintentional, bona fide and due to the reasons beyond the control of the appellant. In the first week of April, 2010, appellant engaged the services of two Counsel and relevant papers for filing of the complaint were handed over to them. However, those Counsels gave false assurance that time limit for filing the complaint is three years. Appellant not satisfied with their verbal assurance, wrote a letter to them on 15.5.2010. In reference to that letter, Advocate informed the appellant telephonically that requisite fee amounting to Rs. 4,000 has been deposited with the State Government Treasur