TIME LIMITATION WHEN CAN BE CONDONED.

                                          (CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986)

Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the consumer fora thus:

 "24A. Limitation period - (1) The District Forum, the 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if 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:

Provided 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 a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

SUPREME COURT VIEWED IN VARIOUS CASES;

Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), laid down that:

 “ It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.”

In R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)=I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been observed:

 “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied.  The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

  In Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR1962 Supreme Court 361,

 it has been observed;

 “It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right.  The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5.  If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone.  If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay.  This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bonafides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the inquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

  In Union of India and Another v. British India Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 50, while dealing with an aspect of limitation for an application for refund prescribed in Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, this Court held that the question of limitation was a mandate to the forumirrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply it.

  In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K. Sood,Act, 1986 (2006) 1 SCC 164, this Court while dealing with the same provision viz., Section 24A of the held:

 Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.

 In a case of Gannmani Anasuya and Others v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 296, 7

"this Court highlighted with reference to Section 3 of the Limitation Act that” it is for the court to determine the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that as to whether such a plea has been raised by the parties; such a jurisdictional fact need not be even pleaded.”

 

 

DR PREM LATA

 

                                                            -

Previous

Next