SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is an application challenging maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to the petitioner the dispute herein is with regard to alleged sale of a Motor Cycle on 31.10.04 but the complaint was filed on 23.9.09 which is barred under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The Respondent/Complainant filed objection admitting that he has availed a vehicle loan from the opp.party hypothecating the vehicle on 31.10.2004 agreeing to repay the loan in 36 equal monthly instalments, that the opp.party seized the vehicle when there was default in repayment of loan, that the opp.party sold the vehicle on 31.10.2005, that the original and actual date of cause of action are from 31.10.04,the date on which the hire purchase loan was availed and 30.10.07 the date on which the instalment period is over that as per original and actual cause of action the last date for filing complaint is 30.10.09 and that therefore there is no limitation Points: Heard both sides. The following facts are not disputed. The respondent/complainant has availed loan of Rs.47,500/- for the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-02 T 7501 from opp.party executing hypothecation agreement, that the vehicle was taken possession bny the opp.party on 24.9.05 and that the vehicle was sold on 31.10.2005 for Rs.30,000/- As a matter of fact the date of accruel of the cause of action is significantly absent in para 10 of the complaint where in it is stated that “ the cause of action for this complaint arose at the office of the 2nd opp.party when the complainant had availed the vehicle loan at Vadayattukottah, Kollam which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum” If that be so, the date on which cause of action accrued is the date of availing loan which is 31.10.2004. So the contention that the date was omitted with ulterial motives cannot be ignored. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was taken possession by the opp.party on 24.9.05. When the opp.parties say that the vehicle was sold in auction on 31.10.05 the complainant in his objection pleads ignorance of the sale. However in para 6 of the complaint the complainant has stated that “Though the complainant had on various occasions approached the 2nd opp.party for redressal of his grievances relating to the sale of the motor bike for a value for below than its market price ………..” which mean that he was aware of the sale of vehicle. So as argued by the opp.party the cause of action arises with the sale of the motor bike and not from the date of expiry of the last instalment of loan. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is barred by limitation as the same is filed after the expiry of 2 years from the date of sale of the Motorcycle. Point found accordingly. In the result the IA is allowed holding that the complaint is barred by limitation. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. | 
