JUDGMENT

Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is a Revision Petition filed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the 2nd opposite party in C.C.No.209/2018 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (the District Commission for short) against the order in I.A.No.146/2024 dated 08.02.2024.

2. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had purchased imported tiles from the 1st opposite party for the purpose of laying the same in his newly constructed house. There was an assurance by the opposite parties 1 and 3 that the said tiles are of international standard. The laying work was entrusted to the 2nd opposite party who was paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as laying charges. But later, the complainant found that the tiles were not properly fixed and on noticing the defects, he had contacted the opposite parties for remedial measures. The 2nd opposite party said that the fault was on the part of the manufacturer. The complainant had approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 for replacing the tiles and curing the defects, but nothing was done. He would estimate the damage caused on account of the deficiency in service as Rs.16,59,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand only). On 17.02.2018 the complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice seeking compensation and damages. Subsequently, he filed the complaint.

3. According to the Petitioner, a complaint has to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 expressly stipulates that a complaint filed after two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen cannot be entertained by the Consumer Commission.

4. In paragraph 14 of the complaint, it is alleged that the cause of action for the complaint arose when the defects were noted on the tiles by the complainant and subsequently on 17.02.2018 the complainant had issued a notice to the opposite parties. Though the date of issuance of legal notice was stated in the complaint, the date on which the defects of the tiles were noted by the complainant was conspicuously absent in the complaint.

5. According to the Petitioner, the complainant has committed fraud on the statute. Cause of action as contemplated under Section 69 of the Act is the foundation of the claim and it was obligatory on the part of the Complainant to state the date on which the actual cause of action had arisen. The District Commission, without appreciating the grounds raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint had dismissed the I.A. The impugned order had caused grave prejudice to the Petitioner. The District Commission ought to have found that Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one and the same. So misquoting a provision would not tantamount to change of the intention of the applicant.

6. Further argument is that the District Commission has committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in “M. Siddiq Vs. Suresh Das” reported in 2020 I SCC I which is a case of recovery of possession of a property based on title. Here the subject matter is entirely different. The District Commission has miserably failed in appreciating the fact that the complaint was filed by concealing the date on which the complainant had realized the fact that he was cheated.

7. The District Commission was over enthusiastic in reaching a conclusion that the consumer complaint bears a continuing cause of action disregarding the fact that the complainant did not affirm the date on which the cause of action had accrued. For the reasons stated above the Petitioner would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

8. When the matter was taken up for admission, Advocate T.J. Lakshmanan took notice for the respondent No.1/complainant. The counsel f