CHARIT KUMAR vs ADMINISTRATOR, SARPANCH OF VILLAGE PANCHAYAT RAMBAS

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 26.11.2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan at Jaipur dismissing Appeal Nos. 857 of 1994, 846 of 1994 and 847 of 1994 against three orders dated 18.4.1994 of the District Forum dismissing complaints filed by the petitioners/complainants.

COMPLAINT by Charit Kumar, petitioner No. 1 was filed, inter alia, alleging that on 21.10.1972 Village Panchayat Rambas passed resolution to allot a plot measuring 15x24 out of Khasra No. 434 to him and he made payment in respect thereto on 25.10.1972. Despite repeated requests made to the then Sarpanch, he was not given possession of the allotted plot. Similar are the allegations made in complaints filed by Shakuntala Gupta, petitioner No. 2 and Ravindra Kumar, petitioner No. 3. The District Forum dismissed complaints by separate orders, all dated 18.4.1994 on the grounds that complaints were barred by limitation; that after the judgment in Appeal No. 121 of 1977 by the Appellate Authority, Alwar wherein petitioners were arrayed as respondents, the Forum did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaints; that the Forum did not have jurisdiction to examine the allegation made by petitioners about auction proceedings having been fabricated by the Sarpanch which issue could be adjudicated only on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. Appeals taken out against the order(s) dated 18.4.1995 were dismissed on the ground of complaints having been filed highly belatedly and there being no relationship of consumer and provider of service between the parties. We have heard the representatives of petitioners on admission of petitions. Copies of complaints handed over during the course of hearing by the representatives of petitioners would show that the complaints of petitioners 2 and 3 bear the date of 24.5.1992 each while that of petitioner No. 1 as 21.10.1992. Obviously, the complaints were filed on or about the dates noted therein. In the complaints, the petitioners allege allotment to them of one plot each towards the end of the year 1972. They further allege that thereafter they repeatedly approached the Sarpanch but he avoided delivering possession of the plots on one ground or the other. Date(s), month(s) and the year(s) on which the petitioners approached the Sarpanch have, however, not been disclosed in the complaint. Cause of action to file suit had accrued to the petitioners on refusal by the Sarpanch to deliver possession of the plots allegedly allotted to them. Limitation provided for filing suit for recovery of plot was three years from the date of accrual of cause of action. Obviously, by the time the complaints came to be filed, remedy of suit had become hopelessly barred by time. Although, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which came into force in the year 1987, did not prescribe any period of limitation for filing of complaint but by inserting Section 24(A), the limitation for filing complaint was prescribed as two years from the date of accrual of cause of action w.e.f. 18.6.1993. It is true that no limitation period was prescribed on the date the complaints came to be filed by the petitioners, still it was not the intention of Legislature to allow filing of complaints in respect of stale claims. State Commission had, thus, rightly dismissed the appeals on the ground of complaints having been filed highly belatedly. Order of State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.