Parties file hazira.

The application dated 16.11.2016 of the OPs is taken up today for hearing.

Heard ld. advocates of both sides.  Perused the application. 

No written objection is filed against the application of the OPs by the complainant. 

It has been contended by the ld. advocate of the OPs that the complainant had come to the office of the OPs for taking hair treatment and he had visited the Clinic of the OPs in the month of November, 2013 and thereafter did not contact with the OPs in any manner whatsoever.  The complainant has filed the instant proceedings on 22.12.2015 i.e., after passing of two years and one month alleging deficiency of service against the OPs and within this period the complainant neither raised any dispute nor made any correspondence with the OPs regarding the alleged deficiency of service.  It has been further contended by the ld. advocate of the OPs that there is no specific cause f action in the instant case and no specific allegation has been made out by the complainant against the OPs and complainant has not particularly mentioned in the complaint petition as to the reasons for delay in preferring the instant proceedings and the instant complaint petition is completely time barred as per provisions laid down in Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and accordingly the case is not maintainable.

On perusal of the facts of the complaint case it appears that being attracted upon the advertisement, the complainant made contact with the OPs on 17.03.2013 for hair treatment and for such hair culture a total amount of package was Rs.28,000/-, but the OPs had taken a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant.  On such assurance the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 17.03.2013 in cash to the OP No.3 and thereafter the complainant as per demand of the OPs has paid Rs.250/-, Rs.4,900/-, Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,416/- respectively on diverse dates and lastly he paid a sum of Rs.21,900/- on 23.11.2013 and thus altogether Rs.40,466/- was paid to the OPs by the complainant which was much higher to the contract.  Complainant spent Rs.7,000/- as travelling expenses to attend he office of the OPs at Siliguri from his residence at Tufanganj, Dist.- Coochbehar.  But after such prolonged treatment he did not get any positive result. 

From the facts disclosed in the complaint petition, it is not clear from which date the hair treatment of the complainant was started.  It is also not clear how many sittings were availed of by the complainant.​

Complainant also failed to submit any document in respect of terms and condition of the alleged contract.

From the facts of the complaint as well as submission of the ld. advocate of the both sides and the documents submitted on the side of the complainant, we find that the complainant lastly visited the clinic of the OPs on 23.11.2013 and after that he neither made any correspondence with the OPs nor raised any complaint alleging deficiency of service.  Complainant has filed the instant case on 22.12.2015 i.e., after passing of two years and one month of his last visit to the clinic of the OPs. 

Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has stated the limitation period in respect of the filing of complaint case.  As per provision laid down in Section 24 A (1) “The District Forum, 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. 

Section 24 A (2) of the said Act provides that “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, 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”.

In this case, the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint petition as to the reasons for delay in filing the complaint petition within the specific period of two years from the date of his last visit in the chamber of the OPs on 23.11.2013.  Complainant also failed to state the specific cause of action in the complaint petition. 

Under such circumstances, this Forum constrains to hold that the instant complaint case is barred by limitation and accordingly liable to be dismissed. 

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D 

that the Consumer Case No.131/S/2015 is barred by limitation as per provisions laid down in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and accordingly dismissed. 

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.