IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 463/09 DATED 11.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. C.S. Nagaraja S/o R.S. Srinivasa, R/at Door No.979/273, Manchegowdana Koppal, Opp: Bhoopanna Choultry, Mysore-17.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Principal, S.B.R.R. Mahajan 1st Grade, College, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore-12.<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 09.12.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 11.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/-, with interest and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. Amongst other facts, in the complaint it is alleged that, son of the complainant by name C.S. Pavan was admitted to the opposite party college on 01.06.2007, for 1st year B.Sc.. He had paid in all Rs.20,000/- to the opposite party, but receipt for Rs. 18,604/- was issued. Son of the complainant joined engineering college. Then complainant requested the opposite party to refund the said amount. After several correspondences, opposite party paid only Rs.3,500/-. It is stated that, the opposite party having not repaid the remaining amount, there is deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 3. Considering the material on record and the facts alleged. We heard the complainant on the point of limitation. We have perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, the point for our consideration is, whether the complaint is in time?<br /> <br /> 5. For the following reasons our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Son of the complainant was admitted to the opposite party college on 01.06.2007 and on the said date the amount was paid. Present complaint is filed on 09.12.2009 i.e., after more than about 2 years 5 months. For the said delay, there is no explanation offered by the complainant. No reasons are assigned and no prayer is made for condonation.<br /> 7. Further, most important aspect that needs to be considered is the complainant has produced a copy of letter said to have been sent by him to the opposite party, which is undated, but in the said letter it is specifically stated that, on 28.11.2007, the opposite party repaid only Rs.3,500/-. Hence, it is clear that, on the said date the opposite party denied or refused to repay the remaining amount. In spite of it, since then till the date of filing of the complaint, the complainant kept quite and for the said delay no reasons are assigned.<br /> <br /> 8. Also, it may to noted that, thought the son of the complainant was admitted on 01.06.2007 and immediately thereafter son of the complainant got admitted in an engineering college and by the letter dated 12.07.2007 request was made by the complainant to the opposite party to refund the amount.<br /> <br /> 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in II (2009) CPJ 29 has held that<br /> <br /> “It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed there under. As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”<br /> <br /> 10. For the reasons noted above, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is not in time.<br /> <br /> 11. Accordingly, we pass the following order. <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed as time barred.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 11th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />