This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, M. Athony Raju  against the order dated  8.7.2016 passed by the State Commission , Chhattisgah, Raipur in FA No. 15/691.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. None was present on behalf of respondent no.3

3.       The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation and the State Commission has also upheld the order of District Forum. He narrated the brief facts that the petitioner had got a vehicle financed from respondents no.1and 2.However, the vehicle was repossessed in the year 2010 and after that in the year 2015 when he wanted to take another vehicle through finance from other financier, he came to know that his name has been shown as defaulter in CIBIL list.   He then gave notice to respondent no.1 and filed consumer complaint in the year 2015 before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the consumer complaint was time barred and was filed beyond the limitation period of 2 years as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.       The complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission and the same was also dismissed and order of District Forum was upheld. Hence, the present revision petition.

5.       The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the main grievance of the petitioner is that respondents no.1 and 2 have not issued the NOC  so that his name could be deleted from the CIBIL list.  He stated that the District Forum did not consider that there was nothing due from the petitioner to the respondents. As there is nothing  due against petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to get NOC from respondents no.1 and 2.  It was further argued that the respondents have not disclosed in their written statement that anything was payable by the petitioner. Hence, if the respondents are not making any claim in their written statement, they are liable to issue NOC to the petitioner.  6.                                                                                  In respect of delay, the learned counsel stated that it was a continuous cause of action as there was  no information with the petitioner that respondents no.1 & 2 have shown   any demand on the petitioner and consequently complainant’s name has been mentioned in the CIBIL list. When the complainant approached the other financier for financing the other vehicle, then only he came to know that his name was in defaulter list in CIBIL. The period of limitation is to be taken from the date of knowledge and not from the date when the vehicle was repossessed.

7.       On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 stated that in the written statement filed before the District Forum it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner owes some amount towards respondents no.1 and 2 and it was further stated in the written statement that the matter cannot be decided by consumer fora as there was a clause of arbitration and the matter could be decided only under the arbitration.  On the question of delay, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 stated that the vehicle was repossessed in the year 2010 and the complaint has been filed in 2015. Therefore, there is a huge delay of about 3 years from the date of cause of action which arose in 2010. The vehicle was repossessed when  the due instalments were not paid by the complainant and  therefore, the complainant wrongly  assumed that there was no dues against him. 

8.       I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on record. First of all, it is seen that the District Forum and the State Commission both have given concurrent finding on the fact that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years.  The complainant has also not filed any application for condonation of delay and in absence of any application for condonation of delay, it was difficult even to condone the delay in favour of the complainant. It is true that respondents no.1 and 2 have not given any specific averment in the written statement that how much amount was due against the complainant but it has been mentioned that the complainant still owes some amount towards respondents no.1 and 2. Moreover, when the vehicle was repossessed, the complainant did not file any complaint after repossession  of the vehicle. It means that complainant was satisfied with the repossession of the vehicle. Under these circumstances, complainant must have realized that there were certain   dues against him to be recovered by respondents no.1 and 2. Moreover, during the arguments, a specific question was asked from the learned counsel for the complainant that when was the vehicle purchased and how many instalments were due when the vehicle was  repossessed. Learned counsel clearly replied that these questions are not material for decision of the present  revision petition and that he does not have any information in this regard.  From this reply, it is clear that complainant does not want to give correct information before this Commission and it seems that he did not go with clean hands before the consumer forum. 

9.       Moreover, on the question of limitation, it is clear that when the vehicle was repossessed by respondents no.1 and 2, the complainant must have been aware that how much dues was thereupon  him and keeping his profit and loss in view, he did not pursue any case against the respondents for repossession of the vehicle. Though the complainant was having the full knowledge about his loan account but, he has not given any letter to respondents no.1 and 2 that his dues may be adjusted in the sale proceeds of the vehicle. He has also not received any amount from respondents no.1&2  after adjustment of the sale proceeds. Therefore, his presumption that there would have been no dues against him was pre-mature and unfounded. Clearly, this aspect cannot give any advantage to the complainant  in condoning the huge delay of three years. Hon’ble Supreme Court in   case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) has observed that:

“12.  Recently, in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries,  2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held;

8.       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 thereunder. 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.”

10.     Thus, the District Forum has rightly first examined the issue of limitation and it has been found that the complaint was time barred.

11.     Consumer disputes are special disputes for which special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for speedy disposal of consumer complaints.   Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has observed  the following :

          “It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras”.

12.       Hon’ble Supreme Court in  R.B. RamlingamVs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, has observed;

“We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.” 

13.     The above authorities are attracted in the case of the  petitioner and clearly  negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bona fides are imputed to the petitioner in filing the complaint.  Clearly, the petitioner has not shown reasonable diligence in timely prosecution of his complaint.

14.     Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 8.7.2016 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the Revision Petition No. 2884 of 2016 stands dismissed.