Order No.  6  dt.  29/11/2019

                The complainant filed this case against the o.ps. stating inter alia that the complainant being a research scholar purchased an air ticket from Air India for a journey from Syracuse to Kolkata and back for INR 96,582. The complainant on 4.9.15 rescheduled her booking by paying additional INR 5,000. The complainant after reaching the airport came to learn that she had no booking. The complainant became angry and there was hot exchange of words and subsequently while she availed the boarding flight she came to learn that she could not be allowed to board the flight no.DL 4004. On the basis of such fact the complainant has suffered lot and filed this case praying for compensation and litigation cost. The complainant at the time of filing of this case filed a petition u/s 24 A of the C.P. Act.

                After filing of this case o.ps. appeared and filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case. The o.p. stated that after the expiry of the statutory period the complainant filed this case. The period of limitation is specifically mentioned 2 years from the date of commencement of cause of action and the complainant though filed a petition u/s 24 A, but there is no plausible explanation by the complainant to entertain the petition u/s 24 A of the C.P. Act. The o.p. in support of his contention relied on several decisions as decided by Hon’ble National Commission in a case between Sunita Devi alias Gita vs. M/s Jagmohon Motors Pvt. Ltd. and decided on 10.5.19 whereby Hon’ble National Commission relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the delay in filing the case it was specifically held that it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed any such cases for condonation of delay the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the C.P. Act and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the order of the Consumer Fora. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. On the basis of the said judgment o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case by holding that the same is not maintainable.

                The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant in his argument stated that in the original complaint the date wise calculation was given, during the 4 years 2015-18 the complainant was present in India only for 399 days which also included her stay in India during the demise of her father. The complainant is a research scholar and her father was only earning member passed away and the entire family went into acute distress both financially and otherwise. The o.ps. already filed w/v and therefore at this stage the petition filed by o.ps. for non maintainability of the case cannot be accepted and therefore it should be rejected.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the cause of action arose in the year 2015 and the complainant in the petition of complaint along with an application u/s 24 A o the C.P. Act explained the delay, but since o.ps. has categorically stated that as per the statute the case ought to have been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action arose and the case was filed after the lapse of 4 years and the complainant has failed to give the proper explanation and as per the judgment cited by o.ps. we hold that whenever in the statue itself the date has been fixed for filing of the case within 2 years from the date of cause of action arising between the parties and the complainant has failed to give the day to day explanation regarding such filing of this case at the belated stage, therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant is a misconceived one and the same is clearly barred by limitation. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above we hold that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable and allow the petition filed by o.p. for non maintainability of the case.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.207/2019 is dismissed by holding that the same is not maintainable as per law.