Champaben Atmaram Thakron vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors.

HEARD . There is a delay of 2 days in filing this revision petition, the same is condoned Petitioner/Complainant being aggrieved by impugned order dated 8.2.2013, passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad (for short, ''State Commission'') has filed the present revision'' petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act'').

PETITIONER being widow of late Atmaram Shankaji Thakore, had filed a Consumer Complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (Rural) (for short, ''District Forum'') on the allegations, that her late husband was member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 (for short, ''Scheme'') and regular contribution was being deducted from his salary. Her husband died on 26.12.1993. It is stated that withdrawal benefit of Rs. 1,095 was received by the petitioner on 14.7.1994. Thereafter, she had submitted Form 10 -D on 9.8.2007 with the respondents. Pension Payment Order was prepared on 17.8.2007 w.e.f. 27.12.1993 (date of death of the deceased). Since, petitioner had been paid less amount of pension than her entitlement, therefore, a consumer complaint was filed seeking revision of the pension w.e.f. 27.12.1993 along with compensation of Rs. 7,000 for mental agony and Rs. 3,000 towards cost.

RESPONDENT S in reply have stated, that on receipt of the claim application from the petitioner it had settled the family pension claim earlier on 14.7.1994 and granted withdrawal benefit of Rs. 1,095 to the nominee. Further, respondent had finalized the widow pension as per information available in the office record and wages of Rs. 867 is taken for calculation of pension as the FPF contribution deposited by the establishment during the year 1991 -1992. Thus, respondents have already granted widow pension within the stipulated limitation and issued PPO on 17.8.2007. Hence, there is no question to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. The District Forum, vide order dated 30.4.2012 rejected the complaint.

BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same, vide the impugned order.

HENCE , the present revision.

IT is an admitted fact that husband of the petitioner had expired on 26.12.1993. It is petitioner''s own case that she has received withdrawal benefit of Rs. 1,095 on 14.7.1994. Thus, claim of the petitioner for family pension was settled as early as on 14.7.1994. Later on, Form No. 10 -D was submitted only in the year 2007. Whereas, the consumer complaint was filed in the year 2009.

THUS , there was inordinate delay in filing of the consumer complaint.

IT is well settled principle of law that any relief can be claimed under the Act within two years from the date on which the cause of action accrues.

SECTION 24A of the Act deals with this situation which is reproduced as under: "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."

THE above provision is clearly peremptory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.

HON ''ble Apex Court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, : III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) : 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP), took view of the observations made in case State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, : II (2009) SLT 793 : II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) : JT 2009 (4) SC 191, as under: "12. Recently, in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, : JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held: "8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ''shall not admit a complaint'' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the Consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."

THE Apex Court in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, (supra), held as under: "12. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."

IT is well settled that by serving the legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended by the petitioner. In this context, reference can be made to Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. (supra), in which it has been held: "By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Company''s reply dated 21st March, 1996 to the legal notice dated 4th January, 1996, declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act. We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground."

IN the present case, petitioner after 1994, gave representation for the first time only on 4.12.2008.

THUS , complaint filed before the District Forum was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The District Forum and the State Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint. Under these circumstances, as consumer complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same stand dismissed. No order as to cost.