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

Mr.U.B.Wavikar –Advocate appears for respondents in all these matters. However, he has presented vakalatnama in R.P.No.10/103 and R.P.No.10/108 and he undertakes to file vakalatnama during the course of the day in other matters.

          In all these revision petition nos.103/2010 to 108/2010, common question is involved.  In all these matters before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, there were delay condonation applications and those delay condonation applications were not decided on merits.  Instead, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum decided that these delay condonation applications will be or shall be decided along with the complaints. This procedure is not in accordance with the law.  Section 24-A specifically states that Consumer Fora shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of which cause of action has arisen.  Sub section (2) permits to entertain complaint, if the complainant satisfies the Consumer Fora that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such a period.  It further provides that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the Consumer Fora records its reasons for condonation of delay. Therefore, reading sub section (1) along with proviso to sub section (2), result follows that the complaint can be entertained beyond the period of limitation, if it is accompanied by a delay condonation application and the delay is condoned for the reasons recorded. 

What is important to be noted that sub-section (1) and proviso both prohibits admission of complaint in absence of decision in respect of delay condonation application and, therefore, the procedure as contemplated under section 24-A is that first complaint must be filed within a period of two years and if it is so, the Consumer Fora may admit it. 

Secondly, if the complaint is being filed beyond the period of limitation, it can be presented along with an application for condonation of delay and the delay condonation application shall contain sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within period stated in sub section (1) of section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  If such complaint which is delayed is filed along with an application for delay condonation, then such a complaint cannot be entertained unless the Consumer Fora records its reasons for condoning such a delay.  Result follows that whenever the complaint is accompanied by a delay condonation application that delay condonation application has to be decided on merits first and after the decision of the delay condonation application, if the Consumer Fora finds that there was a sufficient cause for not filing complaint within two years and, thereby, delay is condoned by the Consumer Fora, then and then only Consumer Fora can proceed to admit the complaint. The practice of admitting the complaint, keeping the point of limitation open at the time of hearing of the complaint is absolutely contrary to the provisions provided under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, what we find that without going into the merits of the case, the procedure which has been followed by the Consumer Fora is contrary to the mandatory and statutory provisions provided under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Both the counsels have conceded to this legal position and they have filed a pursis/memo stating that the order dated 03/6/2010 corrected by order dated 29/7/2010 be set aside and, further, have prayed that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum be directed to consider the application for condonation of delay on its merits.  Said concession is also accepted and, therefore, we partly allow these revisions petitions at this stage and set aside the impugned orders dated 03/6/2010 corrected on 29/7/2010 and remit back the matter to the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to decide the delay condonation application on its own merits first and if the Consumer Fora finds that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, thereafter, it may proceed for considering the complaint on admission as to whether complaint is to be admitted or not. With these directions all these revision petitions stand disposed of. 

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.