Order No. 08    Dated- 31.12.2021

            The instant order arises out of an application dated 24.03.2021 filed by the complainants praying for condonation of delay in filing the complaint petition.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the  complainants as well as the Learned Advocate for the OP-3.

In course of hearing the Ld. Advocate for the complainants submitted that the OP-1 Company acquired a large quantum of land near Rajarhat at Mouza-Chanda Kanthalberia under Kolkata Leather Complex PS and prepared a scheme for development of housing complex under the name “chakra city”, Phase I at Rajarhat Newtown and published an advertisement in daily newspaper circulated in the state of West Bengal. He further contended that the complainants agreed to purchase two cottahs of land under Dag Nos. 461 and  472 from the OP-1 against payment of Rs.  1,00,000/- as advance. The OP-1 issued  Letter of Allotment in favour of the complainants and total consideration of value of the  land is Rs. 13,50,000/- and Agreement for Sale was executed between the parties and the complainants paid balanced consideration amount to the OP-1 against money receipts. According to him, the complainants instituted a consumer case being CC No. 271/2014 against the OPs which was dismissed for default due to latches of their advocate. Hence, the delay of 1986 days for filing fresh consumer case.

The OP-3 opposed the prayer of the complainants and denied that the complainants engaged Sri Debasish Ray, Advocate to conduct their earlier case. The Ld. Advocate for the OP-3 further contended that it is unbelievable that a vigilant litigant do not get any idea for 3 years that their earlier consumer case dismissed for default. The cause to delay is not satisfactorily and this Commission cannot condone the delay on sympathetic ground.

Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which prescribes the period of limitation for admitting a complaint, reads as under:

“69. Limitation period - (1) The District Commission, 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 subsection (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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  District Commission, or the  State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its  reasons for condoning such delay”

On perusal of the consumer complaint, it appears to us that the complainants had instituted a consumer case being CC-271/2014 against the OPs which was allowed ex parte and the OPs preferred an appeal being FA No.  A/1005/2015 before the Hon’ble SCDRC and the Hon’ble SCDRC allowed the appeal by setting aside the ex parte order. The case was remitted back to this Commission for fresh disposal. The plea of the complainants is that their advocate Mr. Debasish Roy did not take any steps on their behalf for which the case was dismissed for default on 18.04.2017 is not correct.

 “Para 29 of the consumer complaint goes to show that  cause of action of the instant case has been arised on 03.10.2012 when first payment was made to the OP-1 and their after on 15.12.2013 when 06 cheques where handed over to the OPs and their after day by day.”

There is no dispute that the complainants earlier instituted a complaint case being CC No.  271/2014 which was dismissed for default. It is also true that the complainants did not prefer any appeal and/or revision petition before the Hon’ble SCDRC against the dismissal of order dated 18.04.2017.

 “In Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K. Sood  MANU/SC/1683/2005 IV (2005) CPJ 1(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inter – alia observed as under :

“11. The Section debars any Fora set up under the Act, admitting a complaint  unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen “.

In State Bank of India Vs. B. S. Agricultural Industries MANU / SC/0420 / 2009 : I (2009) CPJ 29 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, inter – alia observed and held as under :

            “8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a compliant’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to be Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. 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 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”.

The provisions of Section 69 of the Act being mandatory and rather peremptory in nature, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. Admittedly, the complainants have filed an appropriate application under Sub-section (2) of the said  Section and  failed to satisfy it  that  they have sufficient cause for not filing the complaint  within the prescribed period of  two years from the date on which cause of action had arisen. Moreover, no appeal  and/or revision petition is filed before the Hon’be SCDRC against the dismissal order dated  18.04.2017. In our opinion, the grounds of delay is not at all satisfactory.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Miscellaneous Application dated 24.03.2021 is rejected  on contest but without any cost. Thus, MA being No.  288/2021 is disposed off.

Resultantly, the complaint case being CC No. 240/2021 is rejected.

In view of rejection of the consumer complaint, Miscellaneous Application U/s 34 (2) (b) & (d) of CP Act, 2019 is not tenable and rejected. Thus, MA being No. 287/2021 is disposed off.

It is, however, made clear that the rejection of the compliant shall not come in the way of the complainants availing such other remedy as may be available to them according to law.