DATE OF FILING: 13.7.2011.

       DATE OF DISPOSAL: 7.4.2016.

Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:

            This case is posted today for hearing on the petition dated 16.1.2013 filed by the Opposite Party and objection filed by the complainant on dated 18.3.2013.

            2. Parties are present through their learned counsel and submit their arguments today on the point of limitation.

            3. On dated 16.1.2013 the O.P. filed a petition raising preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the case on the ground that the case is filed after a lapse of about 6 years. So it is barred by limitation. Hence prayed for dismissal of case.

            4. To this petition, the complainant has filed the objection on dated 18.3.2013 with a prayer for rejection of the petition filed by the O.P. and to dispose of the case on its own merit as the complainant has filed the complaint alongwith a petition for relief under section 24 (A) 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it is a settled law that no short jacket formula be evolved for dealing with application for condonation of delay and every case depends upon the facts and circumstances of its own. Therefore the Forum must be liberally construed the expression a” sufficient cause” in order to advance cause of justice.

            5. We heard the matter from both the sides and carefully gone through the case record.  On perusal of the case record we found  that the complainant being persuaded by proposal of O.P. for construction of blissful M.I.G. unit having build up area of 1100 Sqft. At mouza Palligumuda, House No. 20 the complainant was deposited Rs.6,00,000/- in total installments. As per the letter of O.P. the complainant deposited  Rs.2,45,000/- towards 1^st,  2^nd and 3^rd installment of Rs.1,75,000/- was deposited towards 4^th and 5^th installments and Rs.1,80,000/- on 6^th and 8^th installment dt.5.6.2006.

            6. Though the complainant paid Rs. 6 lakhs to the O.P. the O.P. neither construct the house nor refunded the deposited money. Finding no other resort the complainant issued a legal notice to O.Ps on dated 24.5.2011.

            7. On perusal of the delay condonation petition we found that the complainant has admitted the delay with the explanation that since he holds a responsible post at Visakhapatnam in Andhrapradesh, he could not filed the present dispute in time but these grounds submitted by the complainant do not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay as per the statutory provision provided Under Section 24 A (2) of CP. Act.

            8. In the instant case the complainant deposited the last installment dated 5.6.2006. After 5.6.2006 no correspondence was made with the O.P. Only a legal notice send to O.P. on 24.5.2011. In this case the cause of action has deemed to be ceased two years after 5.6.2006. The plea of Advocate notice cannot recoup the cause of action and cannot be counted as the continuous process the cause of action for the purposes of this case.

            9. As far as legal position with respect to the condonation of delay is concerned the APEX Court in the case of State Bank of India versus B.S. Agriculture II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) has held that under Section 24 A (2) of the C.P.Act, 1986, a consumer Forum is under duty to dismiss the complaint filed beyond the period of limitation, if sufficient cause of delay is not shown.

            10. The complainant further in para IV of the objection petition stated that sufficient cause must be liberally construed by the Forum in order to advance cause of justice as it is a settled principle of law. But regarding this the Forum views that the expression sufficient cause can not be erased from Section 24 (A) 2 and also from Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act by adopting liberal approach which would be defeat the very purpose of statutory provision U/S 24 A (2) of C.P.Act and provision of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

            Hence under the above circumstances we are not inclined to go in to the merit of the case any further and the present consumer complaint stands dismissed which is barred by limitation  without prejudiced to the right of the complainant to ventilate her claim before the appropriate court of law, if he so desires. The case is accordingly disposed of without any order as to cost.

            Order is pronounced in the Forum today on 7^th April 2016.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.