Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member

          Ld. Advocates for both sides are present.

      Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with Order no.2 dt. 16.12.2019 passed by the DCDRF, Kolkata-I (North) dismissing the Complaint case the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal questioning the legality of the Judgement.

       The fact of the Complaint Case is, in short, like that the Complainant had allegations against the OPs to the effect that the Complainant deposited Rs.1000/- per month under the scheme known as “Swarna Yojona Scheme” commencing from 14.07.2014 to 20.05.2015. The Complainant after expiry of 11 months had liberty to purchase as per his choice from the said “Swarna Yojona Scheme” and he purchased a bangle weighing 4.2 gm. for Rs.10,365/-. But in the billing date i.e. 24.07.2015, the market value was shown as Rs.24,195/- and the OP issued a receipt dt. 24.07.2015 of Rs.24,680/- and the Complainant claimed that the OP had taken extra amount of Rs.485/-. The labour charges were not mentioned in respect of the said bangle. Apart from the said fact, the Complainant made allegation against the OP that in purchasing silver coin the OP took extra amount.

          The Ld. Commission below observed that the incident took place in the year 2014-15. But the Complaint was filed on 05.12.2019. With such observation the Forum below dismissed the complaint as it was filed beyond the period of limitation mentioned in section 24A of C.P. Act 1986.

          Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocates for both sides.

         It appears from section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, that any Consumer Commission shall not admit a complaint case, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

         As per sub-section 2 of section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986, such type of complaints may be entertained after the specified period, if the Complainant satisfies the Forum concerned that he had sufficient causes for not filing the complaint within the such period.

         On perusal of the petition of the complaint, no cause was shown by the Complainant for not filing the complaint within such period.

        The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the Complainant relied upon some annexure for explanation of the delay. But nothing had been mentioned in the complaint petition showing any cause explaining the delay.

          So, we are not in a position to entertain the present appeal because the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation without giving any explanation before the Forum below.

           Accordingly, we did not find any illegality in the impugned order.

           Accordingly, the Appeal being No. A/207/2020 is dismissed on contest. The impugned order is upheld. There shall be no order as to the costs.

          Let a copy of the order be sent to the Ld. Forum below.