Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Sadhana Mandal and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Ajoy Kumat Mitra —Respondent
First Appeal No.1453 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 21/09/2016 in Complaint No. 161/2016 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 16.3.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Atanu Chakrabotry, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Since the complainant failed to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the complaint, such a complaint rightly barred by limitation.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 19 and 24-A – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 41 and 69 – Agreement for sale – Complaint – Bar of limitation – Scope – Case of complainant-appellant that cause of action arose on 6.5.2013, when opposite party cancelled the agreement for sale dated 24.11.2011, relating to flat – Complaint was filed before State Commission on 19.4.2016 after expiry of limitation period, with a delay of 278 days – Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen – Power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to complainant, who can rule condonation of delay under Section 24-A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within time prescribed – State Commission rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by time – Interference with declined. (Paras 8 to 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member—The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 161/2016 dated 21.09.2016 whereby the Complaint filed by the Appellants/Complainants was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. Alongwith the appeal, IA/11215/2016, an application for condonation of delay of 18 days has been filed by the appellants. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned.
3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as Respondents and also carefully gone through the record.
4. The case of the Appellants/Complainants is that the cause of action arose on 06.05.2013 when the Opposite Party cancelled the agreement for sale dated 24.04.2011 relating to flat No.F-3 and subsequently on 05.09.2013 when the Opposite Party issued letter demanding extra payment for flat No.4 relating to agreement dated 27.04.2011. The Consumer Complaint was filed before the State Commission on 19.04.2016 after expiry of the limitation period, with a delay of 228 days. The ground taken by the Complainants for condonation of delay before the State Commission was that the delay had occurred because the Complainant had filed a complaint case before the State Commission for getting legal aid. It was further submitted before the State Commission that the Complainant is a layman.
5. The Opposite Party contested the case on the ground that the excuse of layman is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It was further submitted that the Appellants/Complainants could not prove their diligence in filing the case within the period of limitation. Respondent/Opposite Party also submitted that as per provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, limitation of time is mandatory in nature and such mandatory limit of time cannot be ignored on the ground of Appellants/Complainants being layman.
6. The State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed the Complaint on the ground of limitation. The State Commission observed as follows:-
“The expression ‘shall not admit a complaint’ as occurring in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a sort of Legislative Command to the Consumer Fora for not entertaining any Complaint which has been filed beyond the period of limitation if the delay in filing the case is not sufficiently explained.
The aforesaid facts, evidence on record and submissions clearly indicate that the reasonable hence, sufficient explanation has been advanced on behalf of the Complainants for condonation of the inordinate delay of 228 days.”
State Commission further observed: -
“In the result, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected, the day to day delay having not been sufficiently explained, and the instant Complaint Case is dismissed, the same being barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
7. Against the order of the State Commission, present Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Complainants.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as Respondent and carefully gone through the record. Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows: -
“(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 satisfies 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
