Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President and B.S. Sekhon, Member
RENU AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
GURU NANAK DEV DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 980 of 2011
Decided on : 19-03-2012
Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the peremptory nature of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the requirement for the Consumer Forum to examine the filing of the complaint within the limitation period.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Limitation Period - [Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the complaint was filed beyond the two-year limitation period. The court referred to the interpretations of Section 24-A by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous judgments, emphasizing the peremptory nature of the provision and the requirement for the Consumer Forum to examine the filing of the complaint within the limitation period. The court highlighted that if the complaint is barred by time and the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, it would be committing an illegality. The appeal was dismissed as the complaint was barred by limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had deposited an amount in the respondent College for tuition fees, and later filed a complaint for the refund of the amount paid in excess. The District Forum dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was filed beyond the two-year limitation period as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was shown by the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint for the refund of the amount paid in excess was barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretations of Section 24-A by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous judgments, emphasizing the peremptory nature of the provision and the requirement for the Consumer Forum to examine the filing of the complaint within the limitation period.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER
Version of the appellants:
S.N. Aggarwal, President - Renu appellant had taken admission in the College of respondent No. l. She had deposited an amount of Rs. 55,000 in the respondent College at the first instance for the first year. Later on she deposited an amount of Rs. 27,000 on the asking of respondent No. l in the year 2005. She was required to pay Rs. 55,000 per year as tuition fee but she was charged a sum of Rs. 82,000 per session for 4 years from 2004 to the year 2007. Appellant No. l was made to pay Rs. 27,000 per year more than what was payable by her to the respondent College. Hence the complaint for the refund of amount paid in excess.
Version of Respondent No. l:
2. Respondent No. 1 appeared in the District Forum and filed the written reply. The case was contested. It was pleaded that the complaint was barred by limitation. The cause of action had arisen to the appellant in August 2005 but the complaint was filed on 22.9.2010. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
Proceedings before the District Forum:
3. Parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.4.2011 as barred by limitation.
5. Hence this appeal.
Discussion:
6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted, the impugned order dated 28.4.2011 be set aside and the respondents be directed to refund the amount paid in excess along with compensation, interest and costs.
7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
8. Admittedly the cause of action had arisen to the appellants in the year 2004 and at the most in the year 2007. The complaint was filed on 22.9.2010 i.e. after the expiry of more than two years.
9. As per the provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint could be filed by a consumer within a period of two years after the cause of action had arisen to him. It reads as under:
"[24-A. Limitation period (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint 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 satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, 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.]"
10. Therefore the appellants had the right to file the complaint within a period of two years after the cause of action had arisen to them. In this case, the cause of action had arisen to the appellants latest in the year 2007 when the amount was deposited by them. The complaint has been filed beyond the expiry of the period of two years. The delay in filing the complaint has neither been explained nor any separate application has been filed by the appellants for condonation of delay. The plea of limitation was taken by the respondents in the written reply.
11. The provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP), in which it was held as under:
"8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A
