Date of Filing – 13.08.2015

Date of Hearing – 23.08.2016

PER HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of Opposite Party nos. 1 & 2 to impeach the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 24/2015 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Respondent no.1 u/s 12 of the Act was allowed with direction upon the Appellants to effect service connection in the residence of Respondent no.1 within thirty days, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

          The Respondent no.1 herein being Complainant lodged the complaint alleging that being a permanent resident of Mouza and Vill- Deuli under P.S.- Ramnagar within District – Purba Medinipur had applied for service connection of electricity in his house.  On 27.11.2011 the Complainant has paid fees of Rs.200/- towards earnest money.  Thereafter, on the basis of quotation of WBSEDCL, the Complainant has deposited Rs.200/- and Rs.439/- vide receipt nos. 3400125 & 3400126 respectively on 02.02.2012.  However, till date no electric connection was given in the house of the Complainant.  Hence, the complaint with prayer for certain reliefs, viz.- a) to direct the OPs to connect electricity as soon as possible; b) to direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony; c) to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs etc.

          The Appellant no.1 being OP no1by filing written version disputed the allegations contending inter alia that the complaint is barred by limitation  as the same has not been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and the reminder dated 16.04.2014 cannot be a ground to condone the delay.  The OP no.1 has alleged that the Complainant has failed to show any Free Way Leave and as such there is every possibility of breach of public tranquillity, the complaint should be dismissed.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint on contest against the OP no. 1with cost of Rs.5,000/- with the directions as indicated above, which prompted the OP nos. 1 & 2 to prefer this appeal.

          We have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

          Having heard the Ld. Advocates for the parties and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the Respondent no.1 had applied for electric connection on 27.11.2011 and deposited an amount of Rs.200/- towards payment of earnest money.  After inspection, a quotation was duly issued by WBSEDCL whereby the Respondent no.1 was asked to submit within 09.04.2012 an amount of Rs.200/- only towards the service connection charge and an amount of Rs.439/- towards the securing deposit.  On 02.02.2012 the said amount as per quotation was deposited by the Respondent no.1.  It remains undisputed that the OP nos. 1 & 2/Appellants have failed to give electric connection in the residence of the Complainant till now. 

          Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that in Para-7 of the written version, the Appellant no.1 has categorically mentioned that the complaint is barred by limitation but the Ld. District Forum did not consider the issue and this point of limitation remain unattended.  He has further submitted that the instant complaint was lodged in the year 2015 much after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action which arose on 02.02.2012 on payment of amount on the basis of quotation of WBSEDCL.

          Mr. Surajit Mondal, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent no.1 has contended that his client was in constant touch with the Appellants for installation of electricity in his residence and in this regard several correspondences were made and reminder in this regard dated 16.04.2014 also remain unheeded.  Therefore, the cause of action is a continuous one and as such the complaint was not barred by limitation for which Ld. District Forum proceeded to dispose of the complaint on merit.

          It would be worthwhile to record that in the petition of complaint, the Complainant did not make any specific averment as to the date of accrual of cause of action.  In all fairness, there cannot be any dispute that the cause of action in this case accrued on 02.02.2012 when on the basis of quotation of WBSEDCL amount was deposited towards the service connection charge etc.  Therefore, the complaint was not lodged within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.

          Section 24A of the Act deals with this situation which reproduces below –

“24A. Limitation Period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reasons for condoning such delay”.

          The above provision is clearly peremptory and mandatory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.  The words “shall not admit a complaint” employed in this section restricts the power of a Consumer Fora to entertain a petition of complaint after expiry of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action unless the complaint is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and if such application is filed and sufficient cause is shown, a Consumer Forum has an opportunity to condone such delay.  In the instant case, the Complainant did not file any application for condonation of delay at the time of lodging complaint.  We have no hesitation to say that the Ld. District Forum should not entertain the complaint when the same was filed after expiry of two years from the date of cause of action and in filing the complaint, no application for condonation of delay has been filed showing ‘sufficient cause’ for delay in lodging the complaint.

          Needless to say, the correspondences between the parties cannot be construed as continuous cause of action. In 2014 (4) CPR 258 (NC) (The Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India – Vs. – Karumu Subba Reddy) the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has held that by serving legal notice or by making representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended.

          In a decision reported in 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) ( State Bank of India – Vs. – B.S. Agricultural Industries) while dealing with the provision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed –

“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”.

          It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.  The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.  The statutory provisions may cause hardship or inconvenient to a particular party, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to same.  The legal maxim ‘dura lex sed lex’ which means ‘law is hard but it is the law’ stands attracted in such a situation.

          Therefore, after giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, we have no other option but to hold that the Ld. District Forum proceeded to dispose of the Consumer dispute in a wrong way without following the mandatory provision as contained in Section 24A of the Act, more precisely, the Ld. District Forum should not admit the complaint when the same was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

          For the reason aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest but without any order as to costs.

          The order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/24/2015 is hereby set aside.

          Consequently, CC/24/2015 stands dismissed.    

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information.