HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS,PRESIDENT

          Two Miscellaneous Applications being M.A. 587 of 2016 and 1097 of 2016 filed by the Opposite Party and one Interlocutory Application being I.A. 143 of 2018 filed by the Complainant are taken up for hearing one by one according to the Order of filing.

          The M.A. Application being 587 of 2016 which was filed on 21.6.2016 is taken up for hearing first. In the said  application the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint Case on the ground that the said Complaint Case was not filed within the period of limitation i.e. beyond two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party herein drew our attention to the averment as contained in the paragraph 6 of the said Petition and pointed out that the cause of action arose lastly on 8.9.2011 but the instant Complaint Case was filed on 16.9.2015 i.e. long after the  period of limitation, as prescribed by Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act . He also submitted that the Complainant did not file any Application for condonation of delay which amounted to non-maintainability of the Complaint Case being hit by Section 24A of the C.P.Act – he pointed out. He relied on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Kaulgud Construction Pvt. Ltd. –Vs- State Bank of India and Anr. reported in II(2012) CPJ 285 (NC) and pointed out that subsequent correspondence between the parties could not  be taken as referring cause of action for  seeking remedy under the Consumer Protection Act.  From a bare perusal of the averments as contained in the paragraph 13 of the Petition of Complaint revealing that the Complainant filed the instant Complaint Case after a lapse of four years from the date on which the cause of action arose though he should have filed the same within two years from the date of cause of action, as per Statute. Another interesting point is that the Complainant did not file any application praying for condonation of delay as provided by Section 24A(2) proviso of the Act. Accordingly, the Application for treating the Complaint Case as not maintainable being hit by law of limitation stands allowed and resulting dismissal of the Complaint Case. So far as the Miscellaneous Application 1097 of 2016 is concerned the OP claimed that the instant Complaint Case is hit by provision of non joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Since we have decided that while dealing with the Miscellaneous application being M.A. 587 of 2016 that the instant Complaint Case was hit by Section 24A of the Act , the present prayer for dismissal of the Complaint Case on the ground of defect of parties became redundant.

          An application being IA 143 of 2018 was filed on behalf of the Complainant on 13.2.2018 for amendment of the petition of Complaint for curing the defects as pointed out by the OP in the Written version as well as in the M.A. application but we are afraid such a scope cannot be given to the Complainant which is an after thought and in the premises we dispose of the I.A. filed by the Complainant without entertaining it being not tenable in law, particularly , in this situation as noted hereinabove. Consequently, the Complaint Case stands dismissed. We do not pass any order as to costs.