Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal arises from a decision dated 12-05-2015 of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas whereby the complaint case bearing No. 260/2014 has been allowed on contest.

The dispute between the parties cropped up over alleged failure of the Appellants to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the schedule property. 

In this regard, we have heard both sides and gone through the documents on records minutely.

It is clearly mentioned u/s 24A of the Act that District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Though District Forum is empowered to admit a complaint filed after the above mentioned time frame, the statute envisages that the reason for condoning such delay has to be duly recorded by the District Forum.

In such circumstances, there can hardly be any room for any sort of ambiguity as to the fact that, while the Sale Certificate was issued on 24-12-2010, in case of any dispute between the parties, complaint case to that effect needed to be filed before the Consumer Forum on or before 23-12-2012.  However, it appears that the same was filed on 14-05-2014.  Clearly, the case was hopelessly time-barred. 

In view of this, the Respondent needed to file a separate petition explaining therein the delay in filing the complaint case.  As it appears, the Respondent did not do this.

Subsequently, the Appellants drew the attention of the Ld. District Forum regarding inadmissibility of the complaint case by filing a maintainability petition.  For some obscure reasons, neither the Forum below disposed of the said petition by passing a reasoned order; nor did it make any whisper in this regard anywhere in the impugned order. 

In our considered opinion, without first deciding the fate of the maintainability petition being moved by the Appellants, it was highly improper on the part of the Forum below to dwell on the merit of the case.  

In any case, the schedule property being purchased through an auction sale, it appears that the Respondent cannot be considered as a consumer.  In this regard, we have relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.T.Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors., 2009 (3) CPR 97 (SC).

In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.  The same is set aside as such.  Consequent thereof, the Appeal stands allowed. We, however, accord due liberty to the Respondent to agitate his case before the appropriate Court of Law for due relief.