Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

Heard Mr.S.R.Bhise-Advocate for the appellant.

This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane on 03/7/2010 in consumer complaint no.133/2010.  Said complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum on the ground of limitation.  Facts in brief are as follows:-

There was an agreement on 28/12/2002 in between appellant and respondent and in view of the said agreement an amount of Rs.1,65,800/- was paid by the appellant on 24/7/2003 to the respondent.  Respondent was given work of repairs and interior decoration. Said work was to be completed within a period of three months.  Since the said work was not completed within a period of three months, complaint was filed claiming interest @ 15% p.a. and further amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of mental agony and Rs.30,000/- by way of cost of the litigation. 

It further appears that the complainant/appellant has also filed a criminal complaint under section 5-120(B), 406, 417, 426, 427 and the said complaint is also pending. Thus, what we find that according to complainant cause of action has arisen on 28/8/2003 and since then he is trying to recover an amount and having correspondence with the respondent and, therefore, according to complainant/appellant, complaint is within time.

District Consumer Forum has come to the conclusion that complaint is time barred.  Admittedly, in the present matter cause of action has arisen when the respondent has failed to complete the work within three months after receipt of amount on 24/7/2003, so it will come to 23/10/2003.  Therefore from that day within a period of two years complaint ought to have been filed.  Correspondence by the parties years together does not extend the period of limitation. Therefore, complaint filed was time barred.  Complainant was under obligation to file delay condonation application. However, delay condonation application was  not filed along with the complaint. Therefore, we find that decision taken by the District Consumer Forum requires no interference.  Hence the order:-

                                                ORDER

Appeal is rejected.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.