Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.1.2010 , rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section-151 of C.P.C. for condonation of delay of 3 months and 26 days was filed. The grounds set up, in the application, for condonation of delay are, to the effect, that while arguments in Misc. Application No.27 of 2010 were addressed, a statement before the District Forum, was made by the OPs, that they had replaced the Mobile phone handset, and gave the same, to the representative of the complainant. It was stated that in order to find out, as to when, the Mobile phone was replaced and in place of the complainant, to whom it was given, he had to run from pillar to post. It was further stated that, ultimately, the complainant/appellant came to know that the statement made by the OPs, at the time of arguments, in the aforesaid application, was totally false. It was further stated that such a statement was made, with a view to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant. It was further stated that due to this reason, the appellant could not file the appeal in time. It was further stated that the delay in filing the appeal, was neither intentional, nor deliberate. 3. No reply to the application was filed by the respondents. 4. We have heard the Counsel for the applicant/appellant, on the application for condonation of delay of 3 months and 26 days, and have gone through the record, carefully. 5. In case, the complainant/appellant was not satisfied with the alleged statement, made by the Counsel for the OPs, during the course of arguments in Misc. Application No.27 of 2010, that the replaced mobile phone Handset had been given, to his representative, he could, at that very time, make statement before the District Forum, that no such Handset had been replaced, or given either to him, or to his representative. The case of the applicant/appellant, to the effect, that since sufficient time was consumed to find out the whereabouts of the replaced handset, and the person, to whom the same had been handed over, the delay occurred in filing the appeal. It is evident from C-3, a document submitted by the complainant/appellant, that the replaced handset was handed over to his representative. The IMEI number of the replaced handset was also written in the said document. It appears that such a story was concocted by the applicant/appellant, just with a view to cover up the delay, which occurred, in filing the appeal. The applicant/appellant failed to satisfactory explain the delay of 3 months and 26 days, which is 116 days, beyond the normal period of 30 days, within which, the appeal could be filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only). No sufficient cause, was, thus, established by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay of 3 months and 26 days. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs B.S.Agricultural Industries (I) II(2009)CPJ 29(SC), while considering the provisions of Section 24A of the Act, held as under ; “Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the Consumer Fora thus: “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.” 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 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 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.” 6. No doubt, in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with Section 24A of the Act, relating to the filing of complaint within a period of two years, from the date of, accrual of cause of action. However, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is also equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. There was incomplete inaction and lack of bona-fides, on the part of the applicant/appellant, in filing the appeal, in time. No ground, whatsoever, is made out for condonation of delay of 3 months and 26 days. The application, thus, deserves to be dismissed. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the application for condonation of delay of 3 months and 26 days, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by time, is also dismissed, with no order as to costs. 8. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 9. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
