KAMLESH KUMARI vs Union of India

THIS appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 7.4.1999, passed by the District Forum, Sangrur whereby the complaint filed by Kamlesh Kumari and others was dismissed as barred by time.

THE core question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the complaint is time barred or not. We have heard the Counsels for the respondent No. 1-Mr. Vipin Sharma and for respondent No. 2 - Mr. J.S. Rana. None was present on behalf of the appellant. We have carefully perused the contents of the complaint for the decision of the case. It is clear from the perusal of the contents of the complaint that the complainants approached the opposite party in the month of March, 1996 for payment of the interest amount. But the opposite party refused to make any payment of interest against account Nos. 30097 and 30098. This point has been mentioned in Para No. 4 of the written arguments submitted by the complainants before the District Forum. Thus, the complainants were well aware of the fact that they could not be allowed to withdraw the amount from the above mentioned accounts, in the month of March, 1996.

The complainants approached the District Forum for filing the complaint on 21.8.1998. The cause of action arose to the complainants to file this complaint on the date when they acquired the knowledge that the Post Office Authorities had refused to make the payment of interest to them, i.e. 31.3.1996. Thus, cause of action arose to the complainant on 31.3.1996. It is a matter of record that the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 21.8.1998 whereas it could have been filed within two years but it was filed after the delay of four months and 21 days, thus, exhausting the stipulated time period of two years prescribed in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, it stands established that the complaint filed before the District Forum was time barred and thus, was dismissed on that ground. We are satisfied by the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum.

IN these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.