Briefly stated the facts are that the dispute involved between the parties is that the complainant/petitioner had placed an order for -2- 46 sections comprising of one full set of Excerpta Medica in the year 1992 with the respondent for supplying foreign medical journals to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent gave discount of 4% instead of 38% which had been assured to petitioner. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum in the year 2003 with the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay 3,54,307/- along with the interest @ 9% p.a. Rs.1500/-were awarded by way of costs. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and held that the complaint filed in the year 2003 for a cause of action which had arisen in the year 1992-1993 was clearly beyond limitation.
-3- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in reversing the order of the District Forum on the point of limitation as the respondent had not set up the limitation by way of defence in his Written Statement. We do not find any substance in this submission. Section 3 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 provides that subject to the provisions contained in 4-24, every suit instituted for an appeal preferred shall be dismissed even though the defendant has not set up limitation as defence. Petitioner had made the payment in the year 1992. Cause of action started well in from that day. The complaint filed in the year 2003 was clearly barred by time. There is not infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Supreme Court of India has taken a similar view in “Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. & Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 768” wherein the Lordship observed thus: “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.”
-4- We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Dismissed. No costs.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER | | 
