Shakeel Ahmad vs DURGA LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 17.5.2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/2059/1998 entitled Mr. Shakeel Ahmad v. M/s. Durga Land and Finance Company & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. That complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned District Forum on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the prasent appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 24(A) of the Act, it has been provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Sub-section (2) of Section 24(A) further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied 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. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 24(A) of the Act further provides 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.

ON a bare perusal of the above provision of the Act, it is apparent that a redressal agency, established under the Act, shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In terms of provisions contained in Sub-section (2), a complaint may be entertained even after the expiry of the prescribed period, if the complainant shows ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the complaint within the specified period. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the possession of the plots in question was handed over to the appellant in the year 1991 after executing the sale deed in favour of the appellant. It is also not in dispute that it was after a gap of 7 years that the appellant and filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum in the year 1998. No application, as envisaged in Sub-section (2) of Section 24(A) of the Act, was filed by the appellant showing ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the complaint within the specified period. In the presence of the above facts, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned District Forum. The order, being impugned in the present proceedings suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. A copy of this order, as per the stautory requirements, be forwarded to the parties, free of charge, and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal dismissed.