IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 435/09 DATED 04.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sunanda W/o Sripathi Rao, No.2755, Lakshmi, 5th Main Road, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore-570002.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. S.L. Prabhakar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Proprietor, Sri Saravana, Civil Contractor, No.589/1, New No.2/1, Maharashtra Road, Nazarbad, Mysore-570010.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 24.11.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 04.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, for deficiency in service of construction of the building, as per the agreement.<br /> <br /> 2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 23.07.2007, an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the opposite party, for construction of the house. The complainant paid advance of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, at the time of the agreement. The opposite party commenced the construction work and received Rs.40,000/- on 30.07.2007, and further Rs.45,000/- on 11.11.2007, but the opposite party stopped work on 11.11.2007. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainant, opposite party failed to complete the work, as per the agreement. The complainant got the valuation done in respect of the work carried out by the opposite party at Rs.1,06,894/-, where as opposite party has received in all Rs. 1,40,000/- from the complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint, we heard the learned advocate for the complainant regarding limitation. Learned advocated submitted that, the complaint is in time. We have perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, we have considered, whether the complaint is in time.<br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. At the end of the paragraph 3 of the complaint, it is specifically alleged by the complainant that, from 11.11.2007, the opposite party stopped the construction work. The complaint has been filed on 24.11.2009. <br /> <br /> 7. From the facts alleged in the complaint, even according to the complainant, the opposite party stopped the work on 11.11.2007, which gave cause of auction for the complainant. Hence, within 2 years from the said date, the complainant was required to file the complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 24.11.2009. It is beyond 2 years from the date of cause of auction for the complaint.<br /> <br /> 8. Regarding the delay in filing the complaint, no reason is assigned and so also no application is filed to condone the delay.<br /> <br /> 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in II (2009) CPJ 29 has held that<br /> <br /> “It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts, we are unable to agree with the submission of the learned advocate for the complainant that, the complaint is in time. Accordingly, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed as time barred.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 4th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />