Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.10.2017

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to allot the M.I.G. Plot on the earlier cost of the year 1980.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three lakh only ) as compensation along with 18% interest.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only ) as litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that she has got registered herself with opposite parties for getting M.I.G. flat. For getting her registered she has paid Rs. 50/- by way of challan. She has also deposited Rs. 2,000/- by way of challan in the State Bank of India on 26.08.1980 as she was interested in M.I.G. flats of opposite parties situated in Bahadurpur, kankarbagh etc. in Patna town. Thereafter, she deposited the required form as well as challan with opposite parties.

Thereafter she was assured that the plot in question will be allotted to her through lottery. When the aforesaid plot was not allotted in her name through lottery, then she was informed that her name was not in seniority list, hence the plot in question could not be allotted to her but it will be allotted in other area.

The grievance of the complainant is that thereafter she has been approaching different authorities for allotting the plot in question in her name but uptill now she has not been allotted any plot despite being registered herself for the same.

On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed. in Para – 6 of written statement following facts have been stated, “it is respectfully submitted that it is evident from the entire complaint petition and its annexed documents that the alleged cause of action took place on 26.06.1980 and as such the limitation was to be expired on 25.06.1982 meaning there by that the complaint case ought to have been filed within two years from the date actual cause of action, but the said complaint case has been filed in the year 2011 as such the said case is barred by limitation by about 31 years from the date of alleged actual occurrence/cause of action and or 29 years from the date on which the limitation was expired. However it is submitted that the said Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not in force at that relevant point of time when the actual alleged cause of action took place. Accordingly the said complaint case is hopelessly time barred and is fit to be dismissed with heavy cost.”

It has been asserted by opposite parties that this case is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the cause of action had arisen in twenty nine years back.

No rejoinder objection has been filed on behalf of complainant to the written statement filed by opposite parties.

The facts asserted by respective parties have been narrated in the forgoing paragraphs.

From bare perusal of complaint petition. It appears that the complainant has registered herself on 11.09.1979 and filed appropriate form, and the challan of Rs. 2,000/- in 1980. This case has been filed on 30.12.2011 i.e. after delay of about 30 years of the cause of action because of cause of action has arisen in the year 1980 itself.

It goes without saying that U/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act. the maximum limitation is provided two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. However, this forum has jurisdiction to Condon the limitation subject to explaining sufficient cause by the complainant.

No limitation petition has been filed explaining the sufficient cause U/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act.

The contention of learned counsel for the complainant that as the complainant is pursuing her claim hence no limitation period will be applicable is not sustainable in the eye of law.

For the discussion made above as this complaint has been filed after delay of about 30 years hence it is hopelessly barred by limitation.

However, the complainant is at liberty to pursue her case before appropriate authority either for redressal of claim or for the refund of amount deposited by her in 1979-80 for getting herself registered as well as filing application before the opposite parties.

For the reason stated above this complaint stands dismissed for not being maintainable.

                             Member                                                                              President