Costs paid. Petitioner, which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed this revision petition against the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.61/1999. By the impugned order, the -2- State Commission has affirmed order of the District Forum except for setting aside the direction regarding the compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent along-with her brother took a locker No. 238 on 23.06.1984 from the petitioner bank. Respondent No.2 was manager and respondent No. 3 was Account Incharge of the petitioner bank. She operated her locker on 24.10.1985 and closed the same after putting jewellery. After removal of key she felt some doubt regarding closing of the locker. She requested respondent no. 3 to check the locker but he replied that removal of key means locker is proper locked and she need not worry about it. On his giving such assurance complainant/complainant came back to her house. However, on 05.11.1985, she was called by the manager of the bank as the locker was not proper locked. Complainant immediately reached the bank and checked her locker and found that her jewelry worth Rs.1,50,000/- weighing 55½ tolas were missing. Complainant lodged FIR. As the amount was not paid to -3- her, she filed the complaint before the District Forum in the year 1995. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,26,889.25ps. towards cost of the gold along-with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which disposed of the same by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,26,889.25 along with interest @ 12% p.a. In view of grant of interest, the order of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation was set aside. Order regarding costs of Rs.2,000/- was maintained. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present revision petition. In the present case, the incident of theft came to the knowledge of the respondent on 05.11.1985 whereas the complaint was filed after ten years in the year 1995. The respondent filed the complaint along with an application for condoantion of delay. The only reason given for condonation of delay was that the report of the C.B.C.I.D. dated 07.08.1986 came to her knowledge on 21.04.1994. According to her, the cause of action had arisen to her on coming to know about -4- the report of the C.B.C.I.D. on 21.04.1994. District Forum condoned the delay without issuing notice to the petitioner. The State Commission has endorsed the view taken by the District Forum regarding delay. Under Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a complaint can be filed within two years from the date of arising of cause of action. The delay in filing the complaint can be condoned on showing sufficient cause. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in “State Bank of India Vs. B. S. Agriculture Industries, 2009 CPJ 481 SC CB” has held that Section 24 A is peremptory in command and no complaint can be entertain after the expiry of two years from the date of arising of cause of action unless sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. Para 8 of the judgment reads as under: “8. 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. -5- 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 thereunder. 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 given 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.” In the present case, the complainant had come to know about the theft on 05.11.1985. The report of the C.B.C.I.D. was submitted on 07.08.1986. The complaint was filed in April 1995. The only cause shown for condonation of eight years in filing the complaint is that the complainant came to know about the report submitted by the C.B.C.I.D. on 21.04.1994 which was not sufficient to condone the -6- delay of nearly ten years. The petitioner should have come to the court within a reasonable time. Acquisition of knowledge regarding the report submitted by the C.B.C.I.D. is not adequate reason to condone the delay of ten years. Moreover, the respondent had filed the FIR and the investigation report was handed over to C.B.C.I.D.. It was the duty of the respondent to pursue the case and file the complaint within reasonable time. The fora below have erred in condoning the delay of ten years in filing the complaint. For the reasons stated above, we accept this revision petition , set aside the orders passed by the fora below and dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. | 
