JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The complainant is present in person. Arguments heard. He submits that he himself is a member of the Bar and can argue the case himself. 2. We have heard the arguments. The following facts emanate from his complaint. The complainant was issued registration certificate in the name of ‘Dr. Dewakar Goel’ for allotment of flat mentioning the deposit of Rs.5,000/- on 25.11.1982. On 6.4.1990 draft of Rs.5600/- was deposited as enhanced registration money with interest. Thereafter, nothing happened in his case. 3. On 17.6.1994, the applicant approached the Chief Minister, U.P. vide letter dated 17.6.1994. On 22.10.1994, the registration certificate was issued mentioning the deposit of Rs.10,000/- as registration. On 14.8.1995, Commissioner Housing Lucknow informed that double storey flats were available for which written consent be sent as per prescribed letter by 31.08.1995. The complainant applied for the same on 9.12.1996. The complainant requested the Commissioner Housing Lucknow to know the latest position in the matter and informed change of address vide letter dated 9.12.1996. Nothing happened for four years. Consequently, the complainant approached the Chief Minister giving details of the matter on 20.4.2000. The Estate Manager informed the complainant that his registration was cancelled for not depositing additional registration money in 1996. The complainant who is present in person has argued that he has not received any notice of the same and the cancellation done by the petitioner is arbitrary and dictatorial. This fact was also informed to the Estate Manager. 4. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Hon’ble Governor, U.P. vide application dated 11.7.2011. The Dy. Housing Commissioner informed him that the registration certificate had been cancelled and refund of registration money of Rs. 10,000/- be taken by depositing original documents. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the letter of the Dy. Commissioner, which runs as follows: “ Office of Estate Management UP Housing & Development Board, Hall No. S-1, Sector 16 A, Vasundhara Complex, Ghaziabad No. 730/SP/Ghaziabad Dated 11.4.2012 Shri Dewakar Goel General Manager (HR)AAI 4051, Joy Apartment, Plot NO. 2 Sector 2, Dwarka, New Delhi Sub.: Allotment of Builidng –reg. Sir, Reference your letter dated 11.7.2011 on the above subject addressed to Hon’ble Governor, Uttar Pradesh. In the above context, it is informed that amount of Rs.10,000/- is deposited against your registration No. M7106. Your registration has been cancelled in the year 1996 itself because you have not deposited additional amount. Again in accordance with order No. 1098 dated 01.11.2002 all earlier registration has been cancelled. The deposit money is liable for refund. Please deposit the refund voucher with one rupee revenue stamp and duly signed with attestation of Gazetted Officer. Also mention the account no. and name of the branch of the Bank and submit the original registration card, fourth copy of challan so that the amount may be refunded.” Yours faithfully, Sd/- Dy. Housing Commissioner Copy to: 1. Joint Housing Commissioner, Meerut Zone, U.P. Housing and Development Board, Shastri Nagar, Meerut” 5. The complainant approached the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister forwarded the letter to the Chief Secretary, U.P. 6. All these efforts made by the complainant did not ring the bell. Ultimately, the present complaint was filed before this Commission on 31.3.2014 with the following prayers: “NOW, THEREFORE, most respectfully complainant prays that this Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to: 1. Order allotment of flat on original terms of hire purchase basis in Vasundhara Yojna, Ghaziabad by the U.P. Housing Development Board by withdrawing the cancellation order. 2. Order of grant of compound bank interest on money deposited Rs.5,000/- in 1982 and Rs.5600/- in 1990 so as to adjust the same against the cost of flat. 3. Order compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony due to illegal cancellation and non-response of communication for decades and expenses incurred for visiting offices of UP Housing and Development Board at Ghaziabad, Meerut, Agra and Lucknow when applicant was posted at the International Airports of Bombay, Calcutta & Chennai 4. Since the flat which was required to be allotted was in the prime location of Vasundhara Yojna which was in double storey with metro connectivity worth over Rs.1.15 crore therefore, the flat of similar size and location be allotted.” 7. We have heard the petitioner in person. He submits that cause of action arose with effect from 11.4.2012 when the final order was passed by the opposite party. He contended that the representation and communication also extends the period of limitation. 8. All these arguments advanced by the complainant are bereft of merits. As a matter of fact, cause of action arose in the year 1996 or at best on 6.5.2000 when he was informed that his registration was cancelled. The complainant has waited for 14 years. There is gross negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the complainant. The complaint was filed after the lapse of about 14 years, which is clearly barred by time. 9. This view is fortified by the following authorities of Supreme Court reported in State Bank of India vs. M/s B. S. Agricultural Industries (I) 2009 (5) SCC 121 wherein it was held that the provision is peremptory in nature and requires consumer fora to see whether the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of arising of cause of action; that the expression, `shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period or not; that the consumer fora as a matter of law are required to deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of arising of cause of action. Para-8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : “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 complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the 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 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.” 10. In “Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – (2009) 7 SCC 768” Supreme Court has held as under : “A bare reading of the impugned order shows that all these factual aspects have been duly taken into consideration by the Commission and we are in complete agreement with the finding by the Commission that the filing of claim by the Bank on 14th July, 1988, would not have, in any way, helped the appellant. On their own showing, for the first time, only on 6th November, 1992 and then again on 26th October, 1995, the appellant had requested the Insurance Company to issue claim form to enable them to prefer a claim which request was declined by the Insurance Company on 21st March, 1996. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Company’s reply dated 21st March, 1996 to the legal notice dated 4th January, 1996, declining to issue the forms for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act. We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground.” The case is hopelessly barred by time. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. | 
