ORDERS ON ADMISSION 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties for delivery of the trally and replace the tyres and delivery of implements and compensation. 2. According to the complainant, by availing the loan from the State Bank of Mysore, Chinakurali Branch, Pandavapura Taluk, by means of D.D. dated 10.03.2006 in favour of 1st Opposite party for the purchase of tractor, trally and other implements, the 1st Opposite party has delivered only tractor on 04.04.2006 and has not supplied the trally and other implements. This fact was brought to the knowledge of 1st Opposite party on several occasions. At the first instance, the 1st Opposite party had assured the complainant that the same will be supplied without any delay, almost more than 2 years 3 months have been elapsed since the drawing of the D.D. and 1st Opposite party failed to comply the delivery and hence the tractor is kept idle and the tyres have become weak and further, inspite of legal notice dated 29.07.2008 served on 2nd Opposite party, but not served on 1st Opposite party as the office is door locked, they have not complied. 3. We have heard about the limitation for admission of the complaint. 4. Of course, the complainant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay if any in filing the complaint. Now admittedly as per the complaint, the D.D. is dated 10.03.2006 for Rs.2,95,350/- for the purchase of tractor, trailer and other implements. Admittedly on 04.04.2006 the tractor was delivered. The complainant has produced the delivery note and tax invoice (bill) in respect of the tractor. The complainant has not produced the bill for having purchased the trailer, other equipments. So according to the complainant himself, the transaction took place before 10.03.2006 for all purpose from the date of D.D. According to the complainant, the trailer and implements were not delivered and this fact was brought to the knowledge of 1st Opposite party on several occasions and at the first instance, 1st Opposite party had assured to supply without any delay and almost more than 2 years 3 months have lapsed and 1st Opposite party has failed to do so. In the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that the cause of action for this complaint has arisen on 20.02.2006, 10.03.2006, 29.07.2008 and 15.09.2008. So according to the complainant himself, after 10.03.2006 the cause of action has arisen on 29.07.2008. So it is more than 2 years 4 months 19 days. 5. Under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The proviso to that section provides for admission of the complaint by condoning the delay on showing sufficient cause. In view of the dates about the cause of action mentioned by the complainant, the complaint is clearly barred by limitation. 6. Though the complainant has filed an application for condonation of the delay, but the reasons offered in the affidavit are not at all acceptable as they are vague and with out any sufficient basis. Simply, he has pleaded that the fact of non-supply was brought to the knowledge of 1st Opposite party on several occasions and at the first instance, 1st Opposite party had assured him that the materials will be supplied without any delay. What are several occasions is not explained and what is the last date of request is not stated at all. Simple mentioning that on several occasions it was brought to the knowledge of the 1st Opposite party about non-supply and at the first instance, 1st Opposite party had assured him that the materials will be supplied without any delay is so bald and vague and they do not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. The complainant has not admitted that there is a delay in filing the complaint and what is the period of delay, but simply stated that to condone the delay if any in filing the complaint. Usually the cause of action would arise on the date of transaction or refusal by the 1st Opposite party for supply, there is no word when actually the 1st Opposite party refused to deliver the trailer and equipments. Only after more than 2 years from the date of transaction, the legal notice has been issued and it was not served on 1st Opposite party who is the dealer. Mere sending a legal notice will not create cause of action when already cause of action has arisen more than 2 years prior to the issue of legal notice. The complainant has admitted in the complaint that the cause of action as arisen on 10.03.2006 and then on 29.07.2008 and therefore, it reveals between these 2 dates cause of action has not arisen and there was no demand and refusal to create a cause of action. The party is not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right, hardship is not reason for condoning the delay. For condonation of delay, the applicant has to explain day to day delay from last date of limitation. The existence of sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court is the condition set for the court to exercise its discretion in the matter of condonation of delay, where the sufficient cause is not shown, no question of condonation of delay arises. 7. Since, there are no satisfactory reasons made out in the affidavit to condone the delay and when admittedly in the complaint, cause of action is shown as arising on 10.03.2006 and then 29.07.2008, we have to hold that the complaint is barred by limitation and complaint has not made out acceptable ground to condone the delay. 8. In the result, we proceed to pass the following orders;- ORDER The complaint is not admitted as barred by limitation. (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
