KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.221/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 22.7.10

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN               : MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                       :MEMBER

Muktha.K.N,                                                         : APPELLANT

Koyikkalethu,

Maruthoorkulangara(S),

Alumkadavu.P.O.,

Karunagappally,

Kollam 690573.

     Vs.

1. Adv.Vijayamma,                                              : RESPONDENT

   38/1546, Gandhi Nagar North,

   Kadavanthra .P.O., Kochi.20.

2. Adv.K.N.Ajithkumar,

   Office of Kallada Sukumaran,

   East at Collectorate, Kollam.

3. Adv.Jayakumar,

    Office of Kallada Sukumaran,

   East at Collectorate, Kollam.

JUDGMENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN     : MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred against the order in IA.Nos.415/09,416/09 and 417/09 in CC.198/09 of CDRF, Kollam.  These IAs were filed by the opposite parties questioning the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of limitation.  The complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in legal service offered by the opposite parties in conducting her cases before the Family court, Kollam.  The contention of the opposite parties was that the above mentioned cases were disposed of by the Family Court on 25.9.06 and hence the complaint filed after two years from the date of cause of action was barred by limitation. 

                   2. The appellant/complainant filed objection stating that she had to file an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and complaints against the opposite parties before the bar council, after the disposal of the case before the Family Court, Kollam  in which the opposite parties had vakalath and hence the complaint could be filed at any time since the appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.

          3. Admittedly the complainant failed to file a petition to get the delay condoned.  There is no dispute that the complaint was filed after the period stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act.  The appellant/complainant received the copy of the judgment passed by the  Family Court , Kollam on 26.12.06.  It is to be noted that the aforesaid judgment and decree was passed on 25.9.06.  It is the case of the appellant/complainant that she came to know about the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties only on getting the copy of the judgment on 26.12.06.  Thus the period of limitation started to run from 26.12.06.  Then the complainant ought to have  filed the complaint within 2 years from the above said date.  But the present complaint in CC.198/09 was filed only on 3.7.09.  Thus there was a delay of more than 6 months in preferring the appeal.  The complainant ought to have filed a petition to get the said delay condoned but she failed to do so.  So the Forum below is perfectly justified in   dismissing the said complaint as barred by limitation.

          4. The appellant argued before us that the Forum ought to have adjudicated the matter on merit since the complaint was received by the Forum and it was numbered. The mere fact that the complaint was numbered cannot be taken  as a ground to hold that the delay was condoned. The appellant has also submitted that she was ready to file a petition to condone the delay and she was unaware of the fact that if the complaint is filed after 2 years a petition to condone the delay also ought to have been filed along with the complaint. Such an argument also cannot be countenanced since the ignorance of the provisions of the Act cannot be justified. It is the settled position that, it is the duty of the Forum to consider the issue regarding limitation and that the complaint preferred after the prescribed period is to be dismissed as barred by limitation, if there is no petition accompanying  the complaint to condone the delay.  In the present case the respondents/ opposite parties moved a petition requesting the Forum below to consider the issue regarding limitation.  The Forum below rightly considered the issue as to whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not.  Thus the impugned order passed by the Forum below finding the complaint as barred by limitation is legally sustainable.  There is no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.   Hence we do so.

          In the  result the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

          SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN               : MEMBER

          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                       :MEMBER

ps