S.P. Jain vs UDAY TOURS AND TRAVELS (P) LTD.

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 18.7.2002, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 306/2002 entitled Shri S.P. Jain v. M/s. Uday Tours and Travels (P) Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the poster paper of the appellant entitled "Prevention of damage to continuous centrifugar screen" was accepted for presentation at the Congress in Colombia by International Society of Sugar Cane Technologies (XXII Congress, Cartagena, Colombia-September, 1995). It was stated that the Sugar Technologists Association of India had appointed the respondent as official travel agents for making arrangements for attending the above said Conference and accordingly the appellant had also arranged his documents including VISA, ticketing, etc. from the respondent and for that purpose had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- vide cheque dated 24.8.1995 to the respondent. It was stated that the balance amount of Rs. 26,252/- was subsequently paid by the appellant to the respondent vide cheque dated 2.11.1995. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that the respondent collected his passport and after necessary VISA endorsement from the Colombian Embassy, US Embassy and UK High Commission and the ticketing for the entire travel from 4/5 September, 1995 to 25/26 September, 1995 handed over the same to him on 1.9.1995. It was stated that the appellant, along with the other members of the Indian delegation left to attend the said Conference which was to be held in Colombia on 4/5 September, 1995. It was further stated that after the conclusion of the Congress, while getting ready for the return journey it was discovered by the appellant on 14.9.1995 that the ticketing done by M/s. Uday Tours and Travels (P) Ltd. was in contravention of the VISA rules because the ticketing required double entry or multiple entry VISA whereas the appellant was granted single entry VISA. It was stated that due to wrong ticketing by the respondent which was not done in accordance with the VISA rules, the appellant had to suffer a lot, financially, physically and mentally. It was stated that the appellant thereafter had made a representation to Delta Airlines on 21.9.1995 and finally managed to return to India on 26.9.1995. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum that due to defective service rendered by the respondent the appellant had to suffer mental and physical agony in transit and had to incur additional expenses. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the same is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24-A of the Act.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present 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. On the basis documents/material on record it is not in dispute that it was on 14.9.1995, after the conclusion of the Congress, while the appellant was getting ready for the return journey, the appelant had noticed/discovered that the ticketing done by the respondent was in contravention of the VISA rules. It is also not in dispute that the appellant came back to India on 26.9.1995. The complaint has been filed by the appellant on 10.1.2002. The same was filed in the State Commission and since the matter related to the jurisdiction of the District Forum the same was forwarded to the District Forum for disposal according to law where the same was received on 25.1.2002. Section 24-A of the Act inserted as a result of amendment, effected in the Act by Amending Act No. 50 of 1993 which came into force w.e.f. 18.6.1993, provides that the District Forum, 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. 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) of 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. Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 24-A 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. As already stated in the present case the cause of action for filing the complaint had arisen to the appellant on 14.9.1995 as soon as the appellant discovered/noticed that ticketing done by the respondent was in contravention of VISA rules. It is further apparent on the basis of material on record that the appellant managed to return to India on 26.9.1995. No application for condonation of delay has been filed in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 24-A of the Act by the appellant before the District Forum and, therefore, in the presence of the above facts the District Forum was fully justified in dismissing the complaint, filed by the appellant, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Strangely enough it is noticed by us that despite the fact that the appellant had noticed the deficiency/defect in service rendered by the respondent on 14.9.1995, the appellant paid the balance amount, amounting to Rs. 26,252/- vide cheque No. 294372 dated 2.11.1995. In case the appellant was dissatisfied or had any grievance then he would have not made the payments of the balance amount. However, we are not going into the merits of the matter at this stage.

THE appellant along with the appeal has also filed an application with the prayer that delay in filing the complaint be ordered to be condoned. We have carefully gone through the contents of that application. In our opinion, no ''sufficient cause'' has been shown in the above said application for not filing complaint within the time prescribed by law. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.