SUMAN KABRA vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam 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 16.11.2002, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 25/2002, entitled Smt. Suman Kabra v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant Smt. Suman Kabra had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent MTNL. THE complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order on the ground that the same was barred by limitation under Section 24A 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 of documents/material on record, it is apparent that cause of action, for filing the complaint before the District Forum, had arisen to the appellant during the period from 1996 to 1998 when the telephone in question was disconnected. In view of the above fact, the complaint, filed by the appellant, on 9.1.2002 before the District Forum was decidedly barred by limitation in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24A of the Act. With a view to satisfy ourselves we have put a specific query to the learned Counsel for the appellant asking him to satisfy us about the infirmity in the order, being impugned in the present proceedings. The learned Counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has made a vain attempt by saying that as the appellant even after 1998 had been writing letters and meeting the functionaries of the respondents, the period of limitation for filing the complaint would extend beyond 2000 and, therefore, the complaint filed by the appellant in January, 2002 was well within the prescribed period of limitation. In our opinion, the above plea advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the case of the appellant is devoid of substance. Writing letters and visiting the functionaries of the respondent by no stretch of imagination would extend the period of limitation in the given facts. In our opinion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which 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. Appeal dismissed.