A consumer complaint must be filed within the statutory limitation period of two years from the date the cause of action arises; filing in a forum lacking territorial jurisdiction does not extend this period, particularly if the claim amount is modified without formal amendment.

O R D E R

( 27.02.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.

This complaint under Section 17 (a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in the treatment of his brother-Jitendra Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’).

Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint case No.31/2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Teekamgarh (for short ‘District Commission’). In the said complaint, the opposite parties raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. The District Commission, while deciding the preliminary objection, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, with liberty to file the same before the appropriate forum.

The complainant instead of filing a complaint before an appropriate District Commission, having territorial jurisdiction, filed the instant complaint before this Commission by claiming compensation Rs.49,99,000/-, with other reliefs.

The opposite parties No. 1 to 7 have raised a preliminary objection in their written statement and it has been stated that the complaint is barred by limitation, as the deceased died on 4.5.2013. Thus, cause of action arose on 4.5.2013 and the complaint should have been filed within 2 years i.e. by 4.5.2015 but the instant complaint was filed on 29.7.2016, after about 3 years. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 7, therefore, prayed that since the complaint is barred by limitation, the same be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Heard.

Learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 7 further submitted that earlier complainant had filed complaint No.31/15 before the District Commission, Teekamgarh, seeking compensation upto Rs.20/- lakhs, which was dismissed on 21.7.2016, on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to file a complaint before appropriate District Commission.

However, the complainant, instead of filing a complaint before appropriate District Commission, filed this complaint before this Commission by claiming compensation of Rs.49,99,000/-. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitender Kumar Gupta v. Sukhbir Singh Saini , 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4938, to support of his arguments.

Learned counsel for complainant argued that the preliminary objection raised by the opposite parties regarding non-maintainability of the complaint is not sustainable. It is an admitted fact that the complaint case filed earlier was decided by the District Commission on 21.7.2016 on the ground that it is not maintainable on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant subsequently filed this complaint before the State Commission in July, 2016 and whatever delay was caused, the same was due to the fact that the complainant was preparing the matter. He, therefore, prayed that the objection raised by the opposite parties be ignored and the complaint be decided on its merits.

It is an admitted fact that initially the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission, which was decided on 21.7.2016, with a direction that since it is not maintainable within the territorial limits of the District Commission, Teekamgarh, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. It is strongly objected by the opposite parties that initially the complaint case was filed seeking relief upto Rs.20 lakhs before the District Commission, Teekamgarh but however, the complainant by filing the instant complaint before this Commission has sought relief of Rs.49,99,000/-, with interest and litigation costs.

There seems to be no ground in the complaint regarding enhancement of valuation and no separate