FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
Succinctly put, complainants’ case is that they purchased Country Vacations Membership on 04.06.2016 against payment of Rs. 2,70,000/-. Complainants and their family members had been to Bandipur within the state of Karnataka being a registered member of OP-1 company and compelled to pay fooding and lodging charges to the hotel authority. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the act and conduct of the OP-1 company, complainants submitted a complaint to the Hon’ble Minister in charge, Govt. of West Bengal, Consumer Affairs Department, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell arranged a tripartite meeting but the meeting failed due to non appearance of the representative of the OP-1 company. The OPs have failed to fulfill their services as promised in terms of the agreement. Complainants have alleged gross deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint.
OPs have contested the case by filing WV contending inter-alia that the instant consumer complaint is vindictive, motivated, harrassive and misconceived one. The OPs have denied the allegations made out in the complaint. The specific case of the OPs is that the complainants are not a consumer in terms of Section 2 (d) of the CP Act, 1986. Complainants had availed holiday at a resort of the OPs located at Bandipur, Karnataka through a holiday Gift Voucher. The gift voucher is not part of the membership scheme. Upon understanding all the terms and conditions of using the gift voucher, complainants confirmed the dates of their travel. Clause 27 of the agreement clearly states that “Pickup/Drop, Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner shall be provided on chargeable basis”. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
In the light of the pleadings of the parties the following points have been raised for the sake of proper and effective adjudication of the case.
- Is the consumer complaint barred U/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Have the OPs deficient in rendering services to the complainants?
- Have the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Are the complainants entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point No. 1 :-
We have perused the consumer complaint coupled with its WV. Also perused the evidence of the complainant-1 Sri Tarun Biswas.
Section 24A of the C P Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus-
“ 24A. Limitation period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in Sub-Section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records, its reasons for condoning such delay.”
It would be seen from the aforesaid provisions that it is preemptory in nature and requires the 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 the Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the 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 to be 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”.
It is true that on 16.06.2016 complainants and their family members had been to Bandipur, Karnataka with the assistance of OP-1 company being a member of “Country Vacations” and they paid fooding & lodging charges to the hotel authority. It is true that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with act and conduct of the OP-1 company, complainants wrote a letter dated 12.06.2017 to the Hon’ble Minister-In-Charge, Consumer Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell arranged a tripartite meeting but the meeting failed due to non-appearance of the authorized representative of OP-1 company.
It is well settled law that the cause of action begins to run when the right to sue first accrues, if filing a complaint is based on multiple cause of action , the period of limitation begins to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Complainants and their family members had been to Bandipur, Karnataka on 16.06.2016 being a member of M/s Country Vacations and compelled to pay all charges for staying at Bandipur. Complainants vide letter dated 18.07.2016 requested the OP-1 company to cancel his membership and refund Rs. 2,70,000/- after deducting tour expenses at Bandipur Resort but such prayer was turned down.
It is settled that by serving legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended by the complainants. In this context, reference can be made to Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another reported in III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC).
In the instant case cause of action arose on 16.06.2016 when the complainants had been to Bandipur and compelled to pay fooding & lodging charges to the Hotel Authority and on 18.07.2016 requested the OP-1 to cancel their membership. The instant complaint is filed on 11.10.2018 after laps of two years from the date of tour of Bandipur, Karnataka as well as prayer for cancellation of membership of M/s Country Vacations, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act. Thus, consumer complaint is barred by limitation u/s. 24A of the CP Act, 1986. Thus the consumer complaint is barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay has been filed. Under this circumstances, the consumer complaint is barred by limitation U/s 24A of the CP Act, 1986. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered in the negative.
Point Nos. 2 to 4:-
In view of the determination of Point No. 1, we are of the considered opinion that remaining points under determination are not required to be discussed and decide because in all occasions the complainants will not get any relief as claimed in Point Nos. 2 to 4.
In result, the complaint fails and is dismissed on contest against the OPs. However, no order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties free of charge.
