Important points:
It is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the supplier of services of goods. It is to overcome this disadvantage that a beneficent legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by Parliament. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer`s claim.

The writ petition is filed on behalf of the M/s.IndusInd Bank (hereinafter called 'the Bank'), aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 orders issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), Alappuzha and the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) respectively. The short facts leading up to the writ petition are as follows :

The 5th respondent had purchased an autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-32-5716 registered in the name of one Devassia John in an auction conducted by the Bank on 8.2.2008 by paying an amount of Rs.1,02,000/-. The vehicle had been put in auction by the Bank consequent to the default committed by Devassia John in repaying the loan he had availed from the Bank for purchasing the autorikshaw. Despite purchase by the 5th respondent, the registration of the autorikshaw continued in the name of Devassia John and was not transferred to the 5th respondent. As repeated requests and even lawyer notices did not yield any positive result, or even response, from the officials of the Bank, the 5th respondent filed a criminal complaint before the police followed by a private complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate court. Thereafter, the 5th respondent filed Ext.P4 complaint before the CDRF, Alappuzha, seeking the following reliefs :-

“(a) to direct the opposite parties to return back the sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- to the complainant with 18% interest from 08-02-2008 i.e., the date on which the vehicle was sold by the opposite parties to the complainant and the above stated amount was collected and to take back the vehicle.

(b) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation for the loss of income due to the complainant not able to operate the vehicle since 5 years due to lack of proper records with him which had to be arranged by the opposite parties as per the terms and conditions of sale of the above stated vehicle which the opposite parties have not done till date to the complainant.

(c) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) as damages for the mental agony suffered by the complainant.”

2. On receipt of notice in the complaint, appearance was entered on behalf of the Bank and thereafter, Ext.P5 interlocutory application filed, seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed way beyond the time limit of two years prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the interlocutory application, it was submitted that Ext.P4 complaint was filed only on 13.3.2013 alleging deficiency with respect to transfer of the autorikshaw purchased by the 5th respondent in the auction conducted on 8.2.2008. That, even though the 5th respondent had sent a legal notice on 18.2.2010, calling upon the petitioners to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle to his name, the complaint was filed beyond two years of the date on which the auction was conducted and even the date on which the legal notice was sent. The 5th respondent submitted Ext.P6 objection contending that insofar as the petitioners had failed to transfer the registration of the vehicle to his name, the cause of action continued and was very much alive, even as on the date on which the complaint was filed. It was therefore contended that the complaint was filed well within the time limit stipulated under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. By Ext.P7 order, the CDRF, Alappuzha upheld the contention of the 5th respondent and held that in view of the continuing cause of action, the complaint is not barred by limitation and was hence, maintainable. The Bank challenged Ext.P7 order by filing revision petition before the CDRC under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. By Ext.P8 order, the State Commission dismissed the revision petition upholding the finding of the CDRF, that there was continuing cause of action as far as the 5th respondent is concerned and hence the complaint was not barred b