NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2618 OF 2002 (From the order dated 1.7.2002 in R.P. No.38/02 of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh) C.H. Vittal Reddy Petitioner Vs. The Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors. Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Limitation - Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act - Proviso to sub section (2) of Section 24A - necessary requirements for condonation of delay. O R D E R
DATED THE 4th December, 2002.
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J. (PRESIDENT)
It is the complainant
who is the petitioner before us. His
complaint for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was dismissed by the District Forum since it was barred by limitation as provided under
Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986, as amended. There was a
delay of 183 days in filing the
complaint. No sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay. Appeal against the order of the District
Forum was filed before the State Commission which also dismissed the same.
State Commission observed that
the ground for condonation that the
complainant was an old man and was bed ridden
for more than six months, was hardly sufficient explanation for condonation
of delay and was rightly rejected by the District Forum. It was found that age of the complainant
was 60 years. There was nothing on the
record to show that the complainant was suffering from any ailment. State
Commission, therefore, also dismissed
the appeal. Aggrieved,
complainant has now come before us.
No doubt under sub section (2) of Section 24A delay
in filing the complaint could be condoned
and complaint could be entertained after a period of limitation prescribed
under sub-section (1) and if
complainant has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period,
then there is a proviso to sub section
(2) which says that no such complaint
shall be entertained unless the Forum
records its reason for condoning such delay.
This proviso has been put to guard the Forum against liberal exercise of
the provisions of condonation delay
when it is a question of filing the complaint. Section 24A we reproduce
for ready reference.
24A.
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 within 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.
It would be seen that
when it is a question of condoning
delay in filing appeal either before the State Commission or the National
Commission or even the Supreme
Court proviso thereunder does not
require recording of the reasons for condoning the delay. We reproduce relevant Sections 15, 19 and 23
in juxtaposition to Section 24A
reproduced above.
15. Appeal. – Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum
may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a
period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as
may be prescribed:
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry
of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient
cause for not filing it within the period
19.
Appeals.- any person
aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers
conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause
(a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal
against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in
such form and manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the
expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
23. Appeal. – Any person aggrieved by an order
made by the National Commission in exercise
of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i)
of clause (a) of Section 21, may prefer an appeal against such order to
the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order:
Provided that the Supreme Court may
entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days
if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within
that period.
Condonation of delay
when it is the complaint has to be taken very seriously and that is why proviso
to sub section (2) of Section 24A
mandates recording of reasons. It
must be understood that a suit filed in a Civil Court after the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation
Act has to be dismissed and there is no provision for condoning the delay on
the ground of any sufficient cause being shown for not filing the suit within
the period of limitation. This is the law
which is in force since 1908
when the Limitation Act, 1908 came into
force and same is the position of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sub section (2) of
Section 24A is a departure to the well
settled law that a suit beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the
Limitation Act has to be
dismissed. A Consumer Forum has, therefore, to guard itself against the
misuse of sub-section (2) of Section
24A and should not be quick to condone
the delay unless cogent and verifiable
reasons exist to condone the delay.
Moreover delay cannot be condoned unless other party has been noticed
and heard.
In the present case as has been held by the State Commission firstly a wrong statement was made that the complainant was 80
years of age and in fact his age was 60
years and again there is nothing to
show that he was suffering from any illness.
State Commission said it was merely ipse dixit of the complainant. We
agree. This petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
J
( D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
J
(J.K. MEHRA)
MEMBER
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER
(B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER