ORDER ON ADMISSION STAGE

1)     Heard the complainant advocate on admission, perused complaint and case papers in para No: 9 of the complaint. The Complainant stated that on letters were written to OP on 15-09-1995, 21-07-1997, 2004 to 2005 and on 06-04-2022. It is further stated in para No: 13 of the complaint that the case of action is a continuing till the date.

2)     It is pertinent to note that the letters noted in the complaint i.e. 15-09-1995, 21-07-1997, 2004 to 2005 and on 06-04-2022 and there is a long gap from prior to legal notice before 2005 to 06-04-2022  in the above said period I.E. 2005 TO 2022  there was no letter correspondence by the complainant. When such being the position it cannot be accepted that there is a continue cause of action, the accrual cause of action arose to the complainant from the date of writing the first letter i.e. 15-09-1995. The complainant was expected to file the complaint with two years i.e. before on 15-09-1997, but the complainant is filed the complaint in the year 2023 which is clearly barred by the time.     

3) We can gain support from decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Appeal (Civil 6572 of 2005 Haryana Urban Development Vs. B.K. Sood on 26 October, 2005 wherein the lordship observed that the complaint was barred by the limitation as 2 years period of prescribed by Sec. 24-A of the Act and prescribed much before the complaint was admitted by the State Commission this finding is sufficient by allowing the application.

Another recent decision of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi (2021) CJ 77 (NC) Devinder Sing V/s. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., & others as under:

Complaint – Limitation – Since Complainant remained silent for about 15 years from date of issuance of demand notice till date of filing of complaint, his Complaint is hopelessly time barred – District Forum erred in overlooking that, Complaint was bitterly barred by limitation – State Commission has passed a well-appraised and well-reasoned order – No jurisdictional error or legal principle ignored or miscarriage of justice is evident, as many require interference in exercise of provisional jurisdiction of this Commission – Revision Petition dismissed.

        4) The above said decisions are aptly applicable to the instant case. Hence, we are of the view that, the issuance of legal notice does not extend the time.

5) Therefore we are of the opinion that the complaint is barred by the time. Hence the complaint is dismissed in the admission stage only.