Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This appeal was filed in 2004 and it was pending unattended on the file of this Commission for the last seven years.  As per the policy of this Commission this appeal was placed before us on 29^th July, 2011 after publishing the board on notice Board of this Commission and on internet board.   We found that both the parties were absent and therefore, we had directed office to give notice to both the parties and notice was made returnable on 27.09.2011.  Notices were sent to both the parties by this Commission.  In response   to this, Respondent No.2’s Advocate Ms.Jignisha Vadodara i/b Juris Matrix appeared but she is not having vakalatnama.  So, even Respondent No.2 is held to be unattended.  Since all the parties are absent we perused the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.412/2000 dated 17.12.2003.

(2)                The consumer complaint was filed by the Appellant Mr.Manish Mohanlal Mittal.  It was bearing No.412/2000.  It was filed in November, 2000 against  Hindustan Lever Ltd.,  the Opponent No.1, Arun Jayantilal Shah,  Opponent No.2 and M/s.ABC Computers Pvt. Ltd., the Opponent No.3 and his prayer in the complaint was that Opponent should be jointly and severally be ordered and decreed to deliver 202.50 equity shares of Hindustan Hindustan Lever Ltd. duly transferred in his name and should be directed to pay dividend on the said shares from 1993 up-to-date.  He also claimed `50,625/- being price of the said shares calculated @`2,500/- per share as an alternate prayer.  He made some other prayers also.  Complaint was filed in 2000.

(3)                Opponent filed written version in July, 2002 and in that written version Opponent No.1/Respondent No.1 took up a plea that complaint is barred by limitation.  Complaint was filed after more than seven years since accrual of cause of action.  Opponent No.2 filed written version on 5^th December, 2002  and in the written  version in paragraph no.3, the Opponent no.3 has specifically raised the point that the complaint is barred by limitation under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act and as such it should be dismissed.  After reading this written version Complainant filed condonation of delay application on 6^th January, 2003 supported by affidavit.  In the said condonation of delay application he clearly mentioned that complaint as filed by him on 02.11.2000 was filed in time and was not barred by limitation.  However, he further mentioned that since Opponent Nos.1 and 2 have raised contention that complaint is barred by limitation he is filing condonation of delay application by way of abundant precaution. He therefore prayed that the condonation of delay application should be allowed.  He mentioned that if there is delay, if any in filing the complaint it should be condoned and no harm will be caused if the delay is condoned.

(4)                This condonation of delay application was heard by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai and by an order dated 17.12.2003 the application came to be rejected and delay was not condoned.  Aggrieved by this order the original Complainant has field this appeal.

(5)                Since all the parties are absent.  We perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum. We are of the view that the Appellant had not mentioned any ground or sufficient cause for filing complaint belatedly.  His contention was that his complaint as filed by him in November, 2000 was within time but he pleaded that since Opponent Nos.1 and 2 have raised the plea of limitation in their respective written versions, by way of abundant precaution he is filing condonation of delay application.  But in condonation of delay application he never mentioned any sufficient cause.  As per section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act just or sufficient cause in filing consumer complaint is to be mentioned.  The District Forum in its impugned order stated that:

“it is pertinent to note that from the year 1993 he was in continuous correspondence with the Opponent and on 20.05.1993 itself Opponent No.3 turned down his request for issuing bonus shares.  Further, Opponent vide letter dated 26.04.2000 informed the Complainant to resolve the grievance with other parties.  So District Forum noted in its order that cause of action accrued in 1993 itself and not in 2000. Therefore, condonation of delay application was rejected as no sufficient ground was disclosed to explain the delay from 1995 till 2000.” 

Said order, we are finding is appearing to be just and proper and we are finding no substance in the appeal.  Hence, we pas the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)              Appeal stands dismissed.

       (ii)              No order as to costs.

     (iii)              Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 27^th September, 2011.