HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT MANDAL, PRESIDENT

1. This appeal has been filed against the order No. 2 dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah ( in short, ‘the District Commission’) in connection with consumer case No. CDF/22/2023.

2. We have heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants on the point of admission. Also heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants on the application for condonation of delay. Also carefully perused the record.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has urged that the District Commission held an erroneous, illegal judicial view that the deed should not be executed. He has further urged that the District Commission denied its social and judicial duty by not directing to execute the deed by the wrong doers. But the Learned Commission below created more hazards in favour of the wrong doers. He has further urged that the District Commission has a legal right to remove illegalities but herein the District Commission favoured the miscreants and created more hazards in the society. He has further urged that the appellant No. 1 came in the picture in the year 2022 and the appellant No. 2 is in coma since after the second stroke in the year 2022.  The appellant No. 2 was not in a position to go to the Learned Commission as she was / is widow and trusted the assurance of the developer to execute the deed. He has further urged that the cause of action of this case arose on 06.11.2022. He has further urged that in the name of admission the District Commission has no power to take decision by himself without any trial. He has further urged that there is some delay in filing and the delay should be condoned. In this circumstances, he has prayed to admit the instant appeal under hearing and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Having heard the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and on perusal of the record and the memo of appeal, it appears to us that both the appellants filed a complaint case against the respondents being No. CDF/22/2023. On perusal of the said petition of complaint it appears to us that the father of the appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 agreed to purchase a residential flat measuring 522 sq. ft. at a consideration of Rs.3,39,300/- (Rupees three lakh thirty nine thousand and three hundred only). Accordingly, the agreement for sale was executed by all the respondents, owners and developers and father of the appellant No. 1 and the mother of the appellant No. 1 on 25.04.2003. As per the agreement the father of the appellant No. 1 and the appellant No. 2 paid entire consideration money of Rs.3,39,300/- (Rupees three lakh thirty nine thousand and three hundred only) for the said flat as mentioned in the Schedule ‘B’ of the petition of complaint and the developers duly received the same and handed over the possession of the said flat as mentioned in the Schedule ‘B’ of the petition of complaint. The appellants filed the petition of complaint before the District Commission below on 17.01.2023 which reveals that after about 20 years from the date of taking possession in respect of the flat, the appellants / complainants have filed this complaint case before the District Commission which is not legally permitted in view of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 runs as follows :-

“69 (1) The District Commission, 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 Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

6. From the aforesaid provision it appears that the provision is peremptory in nature, requiring the Consumer Commission to examine before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The Consumer Commission, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint, if sufficient cause is shown.

7. On careful perusal of the record it appears to me that this complaint has not been filed in time. There is delay in filing the petition of complaint by the complainants. Moreover, it appears to us that this complaint is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay.

8. At the time of hearing Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that cause of action of this case arose on 11.11.2022, 21.11.2022 when the respondents received / accepted the appellant’s letter and not been answered by the respondents and delayed causing by the respondents for not executing the deed of sale in respect of the ‘B’ scheduled property as mentioned in the petition of complaint. We fail to accept such contention of the Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 has held the following :-

“10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided.........”

10. The Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, has observed that :-

“ no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.”

11. In the present case also this consumer case has been filed after almost 20 years from the date, the cause of action arose. Even though the complainants made representations to the respondents, we think that the same cannot be considered as the accrual of fresh cause of action. We find that this consumer case is not accompanied with a separate petition praying for condonation of delay. The complainants have filed this complaint case before the District Commission below after a long period of 20 years from the date of cause of action without filing any separate petition praying for condonation of delay which is totally contrary to the provision of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

12. Moreover, it appears to us that the appellant has filed the instant appeal with a delay of 31 days. The office has also submitted a report that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 31 days. To explain the delay the appellants have stated in the application for condonation of delay that the time consumed for the preparation of the draft of appeal and final print of the said draft of appeal was under the control of the senior Advocate who prepared the said appeal and it was made available on 15.04.2023. During the said period the appellants have no intention, latches or negligence and the situation was beyond the control of the appellants. We fail to accept the said contention as made in the application for condonation of delay. The said contention that the delay was caused by the Learned Advocate is nothing but an attempt to mislead the Commission.

13. In view of the above, we find no sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of 31 days.

14. Under this facts and circumstances we find that the Learned District Commission properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and finally arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned judgment which, according to us, calls for no interference by this Commission and, as such, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the appeal be and the same is dismissed as it is not maintainable in law.

16. The appeal is, thus, disposed of accordingly.