STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI APPEAL NO.A/20/218 (Arising out of order dated 06/01/2020 passed by the District Forum, South Mumbai in MA/19/21 IN CC/19/95)

Mr.Ritesh Harish Pawar .......

Colaba M N P Madhyamik School Appellant/org.complainant N.A.Sawant Road Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Versus Central Railway ………Respondent/org.OP Through General Manager CST, Mumbai 400 001 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member The appellant is present in person.

PRESENT:

L/o. Advocate Vrunda Surve h/f. Advocate Tanu Khatri present for respondent.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT (Dt.06/02/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the impugned order passed in Misc.application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant/appellant in bearing No.MA/19/21 in CC/19/95 before the Ld.District Consumer Commission, South Mumbai. The impugned order was passed as on 06/01/2020, wherein the Ld.District Consumer Commission has rejected the application for condonation of delay to file the consumer complaint and in view of that the original consumer complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.

2. This Commission has issued notice to the respondent. The respondent appeared through its counsel and filed reply and opposed the present appeal. It is contended that the present appellant has not justified and given any sufficient reason as to why the delay of 7 months and 24 days is caused in filing the appeal. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be rejected as per section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Grounds of Appeal:

3. The applicant/appellant has raised the ground that the Ld.District Consumer Commission has not considered that there was continuous cause of action to file the original consumer complaint and there was no delay of 7 months and 24 days. The Ld.District Consumer Commission has raised an issue pertaining to filing of A-Summary report from the concerned police station as there was allegation of theft and FIR has been registered before the Railway Police station. The applicant in original Misc.application failed to file A-summary report. Therefore, they have not considered that there is continuous cause of action to file the original consumer complaint. The applicant submitted that the Ld.District Consumer Commission has erred while passing or rejecting the Misc.application for condonation of delay.

4. Heard the applicant in person. L/o. Heard learned advocate for the respondent.

Perused the record. We are passing the following order with the reasoning as given below.

LAW & REASONING –

5. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reads as under:-

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 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 as this 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.

6. As per the aforesaid provision, the complainant has to file the complaint before the District Commission/State Commission/National Commission within a period of two years from the date of cause of action arose to file the complaint. Admittedly, in the aforesaid proceeding, the incident occurred as on 04/09/2016 and the theft has been committed during the travelling in the train. The said incident has been registered before the concerned police station and the FIR was lodged. T