Order No.  02    Dated :  24.06.2019

          To day is fixed for Admission Hearing.

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. Heard.

            On perusal of the petition of complainant it appears that complainant purchased Duster RXL 85 PS 2016 at a total cost of Rs.11,57,630/- after exchange of old Car on 18.09.2016 though the complainant alleged  that he booked Duster RXS 85 PS 2016 on 16.09.2016 at a price of Rs.11,87,630/- and  also intimated the OPs about delivery of booking of  Renauld Duster Duster RXS 85 PS 2016. The vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant on 18.09.2016 and the complainant vide email dated 09.02.2017 intimated the fact to the OPs. Record further speaks that the complainant issued legal notice dated 03.09.2018 regarding change of model of Renauld Duster Car but such notice was unattended.

            Fact remains that the Renauld Duster RXS 85 PS 2016 was delivered on 18.09.2016 and  the instant case is filed  on 06.06.2019 beyond the period of limitation as prescribed U/s 24A of the CP Act.  It is well settled that by serving legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended.  In this context reference can be made to Kandimalla Raghabhaiah & Co.  Vs  National Insuranc Co.. Ltd. and another  reported in III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) it has been held :

            “ By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that Insurance Companies reply dated 21.03.1996 to the legal notice dated  04.01.1996 declined to issue the forms  for preferring a claim after a lapse of more than 04 years of the date of fire.  Resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of section 24A of the Act . We have no hesitation in holding  that the complaint filed on 24.10.1997 and  that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and  the commission was justified in dismissing it on  tha t short ground “

            In the instant case the Renauld Duster RXL 85 PS 2016 was delivered to  the complaint on18.09.2016 and first  time on 09.02.2017 the complainant  agitate his grievance to the OPs. The complainant filed the instant consumer complaint on 06.06.2019 after the statutory period of limitation. Thus, the complaint is barred is barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay is filed.  Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to admit the complaint as it is barred by limitation.

            In view of the foregoing findings, the application under Section 11 (2) of CP Act, 1986 is not entertainable.

Thus, MA No. 248 of 2019 disposed of.