BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 22.12.2022

PRESENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR          :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M           :       LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.2455/2022

ORDER

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an Appeal filed U/s.41 of C.P Act, 2019 by the OP in CC No.182/2022 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2022.          

2.  The Commission examined grounds of Appeal, impugned order & heard learned counsel for Appellant/OP.

3. Learned counsel for Appellant/OP submits that Commission below failed to consider that in para-10 of her version has sated, as complainant himself admitted that cause of action arose on 22.12.2019 and as per Sec.69(1) of C.P Act, 2019 complaint should have been filed within two years and as the complaint is filed on 23.06.2022 is not within the time prescribed by the Act.  It is further submitted that even if the direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in M.A No.21/2022 has to be considered complaint filed on 23.06.2022 was after 23 days of delay is not mantainable.  According to appellant   complainant should have been filed on or before 20.05.2022 but he has filed on 23.06.2022 was not considered before passing impugned order.

4. In our view the object of C.P Act 2019 is to provide for protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to establish authorities for timely and effective administration and settlement of consumer’s disputes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.  Further, Sec.69 provides for Limitation period and as per sub Sec.(2) of Sec.69 which reads “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 Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period” and the Commission below while passing the impugned order recorded in para-4 according to the complainant, due to effect of COVID-19, he was forced to perform marriage of his daughter on 28.11.2021 in U.S.A.  In view of such observation made in the order, OP’s contention that complaint is barred by limitation is rightly rejected by the commission below.  The time limit has been extended by the Hon’ble National Commission from 15.03.2020.     Ld. counsel for Appellant/OP, submitted, Commission below could have considered the case of complainant, if an I.A is filed U/s.69 (1) of C.P Act, 2019 to condone delay of 23 days but in our view  on such ground complaint cannot be dismissed  under order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC and R/w Sec.69 (1) of C.P Act, 201