Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. I have heard Mr. Avanish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/OP and Mr. Parveen Kumar Chugh, father of the respondent/complainant on her behalf.

6. It is an admitted position that the respondent/complainant did a 3- year Diploma Course with the NIIT, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, starting sometime in middle of 1996. Out of 3 years, the last 1 year was also admittedly for doing professional practice (PP), opportunities for which had to be provided by the NIIT. Consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner NIIT was, however, filed on 29.10.2002, whereas on completion of one year of PP, the cause of action arose some time in the middle of 1999. Even if it is taken that the cause of action continued till the end of the calendar year 1999, the complaint was filed much after the statutory limitation period of 2 years from the commencement of the cause of action, as provided in section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). It is also seen that both in the written version as well as in the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner/OP had specifically raised objection that the complaint was time-barred. It is nobodys case that the complainant filed any application for condonation of delay. Moreover, the orders of both the Fora below are completely silent on this preliminary but important question raised by the petitioner/OP.