National Consumer Disputes Redressal
C.H. Vittal Reddy vs The Manager, District Co-Operative ... on 4 December, 2002
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