The court affirmed that a delay in filing a consumer complaint beyond two years, without showing sufficient cause, renders the complaint time-barred as per the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

PER A.P. SAHI, J., PRESIDENT

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bhawnani, learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that there was no delay in the filing of the complaint and therefore the dismissal thereof by the SCDRC Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) on the ground that the complaint was presented in violation of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) is erroneous and the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 deserves to be set aside with a direction to the State Commission to decide the claim on merits.

The complaint was instituted on 22.02.2014 alleging that the complainant/appellant had purchased plot no. E-50 measuring 1000 sq. ft. for a sum of Rs.9,000/- on 29.06.1984 from the respondent no.1/Samiti through its office bearers who have been arrayed as respondents no. 2 to 12. The sale deed was executed on 04.07.1984. The complainant/appellant admits having received symbolic possession but denied having received actual physical possession.

After 7 years of the execution of the sale deed, the complainant/appellant alleges to have moved an application for demarcation of his plot on 25.04.1991 against which an intimation was given on 10.05.1991 that the said plot which was part of Khasra No. 980 had been allotted by the Government to the Maharashtra Viklang Mandal and since the said plot was part of the aforesaid plot no. E-50, demarcation was not possible nor any possession could be given to the complainant/appellant.

4 years thereafter in 1995 the complainant/appellant alleges to have moved an application 13.12.1995 for taking appropriate steps to deliver the plot and then a legal notice was also sent but no response was shown. It was then that the complaint was filed and which was admittedly done in 2014 which Mr. Bhawnani submits was rightly done as there was a continuing wrong and therefore the complainant/appellant had a continuing cause of action.

The complaint was resisted on the ground that such a dispute ought to have been raised before the appropriate authority under the Cooperative Societies Act but the main contention was that the complaint was barred by limitation and hence the same should be dismissed.

Learned counsel submits that two other letters were also sent on 13.01.2013 and 16.01.2014 and therefore the communication was continuing, hence there was a continuing cause of action. The State Commission therefore has manifestly erred in invoking Section 24A of the 1986 Act on the facts of the present case and has erroneously rejected the complaint.

The appeal was filed and was entertained where-after notices were directed to be served. The representation on behalf of respondents no.1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 12 seems to have been recorded in the order dated 05.12.2019 and thereafter the Covid intervened, as a result whereof the appeal came to be adjourned. Nobody appeared for the respondents in 2021 and again in 2022, as a result whereof on 04.08.2022 an order was passed against some of the respondents to proceed ex-parte. An adjournment was sought on behalf of other respondents as per the order dated 04.08.2022 extracted hereunder:

“None for the parties.

Respondents No.3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 are absence despite service. They are proceededex parte.

A letter seeking adjournment has been circulated on behalf of Respondents No.1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 12.

In the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned. Matter be listed again for final hearing.”

Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant has heavily relied on the judgment in the case of Yagnik Surana Vs. Natural Estates and Ors. (Revision Petition No.1131 of 2015) decided on 12.07.2016 alongwith other Revision Petitions, where the following observations were made:

“As noted above, the short ground on which the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint is that the Complaints were barred by limitation, as the cause of action had arisen on 19.5.2001, when the Complainants had paid the last instalment toward