PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)      The complainant is absent.  Heard the learned advocate for the opponent on the application for delay condonation. As per complaint, the complainant paid the amount in the year 2004-2005.  His visa was rejected therefore he had cancelled his tour and requested to refund the amount.  According to the complainant, the opponent refunded some amount and retained the amount of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, he has filed this complaint for refund of the retained amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest.  He has also claimed compensation towards mental agony.  As there is delay in filing complaint, the complainant has filed application for condonation of delay.

2)      The opponent appeared and filed reply to the application for condonation of delay. According to the complainant, the complaint is filed ten years after the cause of action and the delay is not properly explained.  It is also submitted that amount was already returned and it was accepted by the complainant towards full and final settlement therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable. 

3)      The complainant never appeared before this Forum. Therefore, we have heard the learned advocate for the opponent and perused the case papers on record. 

4)      As per complaint itself, the amount was paid in the year 2004-2005. According to the complainant, he had approached the several authorities but no relief was granted therefore he has filed this complaint. The reason given by the complainant is not satisfactory to condone the delay. The opponent has filed the acknowledgment of the complainant accepting the amount by cheque towards full and final settlement. The provision under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act is very clear.  The complaint must be filed within two years from the date of cause of action.  The present complaint is filed ten years after the cause of action. The explanation given by the complainant for delay is not appropriate.  Therefore, it is not accepted.

5)                Thus, the delay is not properly explained therefore we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The application filed by the complainant for codonation of delay is hereby rejected.
2. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 13^th February, 2015