Date of Filing – 01.07.2016

Date of Hearing – 21.12.2016

            The assail in this Revision is to the Order no.13 dated 31.03.2016 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 569/2014. By its order, the Ld. District Forum rejected the application filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties for rejection of the complaint filed by Opposite Party no.1 herein Sri Anjan Kumar Banerjee under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) on the ground of non-condonation of delay of application under Section 24A of the Act prior to admission of petition of complaint. 

          The Opposite Party no.1 herein lodged the complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the four doctors and also the General Managers of two private hospitals of Kolkata on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of them in rendering medical treatment to his wife Mrs. Soma Banerjee.

          Admittedly, at the time of lodging the said complaint, there was a delay and for condonation of such delay an application under Section 24A of the Act was filed but it is alleged by the OPs that without consideration of that application and without condoning such delay, the complaint was admitted.

          Ld. Advocate appearing for the Revisionists filed one copy collected from internet with regard to the first order of the Ld. District Forum which runs as follows –

          “Recd. the complaint lodged under Section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.  Register the case as CC/569/2014.  Complainant filed the complaint with a bank draft of Rs.500/- bearing No.837216 dated 05.11.2014 of SBI, Howrah.  Perused.  Heard, considered and allowed.  Issue notice under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 upon the OP along with copy of complaint.  Fix 09.12.2014 for S/R and appearance and filing W/V”.

          Ld. Advocate for the OP no.1/Complainant, on the other hand has contended that when the complaint has already been admitted, it would mean that the Ld. District Forum duly considered the application under Section 24A for condonation of delay and allowed the same. 

          I have considered the rival contention of the parties. The revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission flows from Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, which runs as under:-

          “to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity”.

          For proper appreciation of the matter, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 24A of the Act which is as under -

“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 contending 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 reason for condoning such delay”.

          The above provision is clearly peremptory and mandatory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see that 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.  In Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. –vs. – National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2009 CTJ 951, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took view of the observations made in the case of State Bank of India – vs. – B.S. Agricultural Industries reported in 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) and has observed the expression ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A of the Act is sort of a legislative mandate 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.  The Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded to observe – “If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided 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 view of the authority as mentioned above, there cannot be any doubt that the Ld. District Forum has committed material irregularity in admitting the complaint without issuance of notice upon the OP’s and till disposal of the application filed by the Complainant under section 24A of the Act.

          For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

          The Order no.13 dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in CC/569/2014 is hereby set aside.

          The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 04.01.2017 to receive further order from the said authority.  The Ld. District Forum is requested to dispose of the application filed by the Complainant under Section 24 of the C.P. Act, 1986 prior to entering into merits of the case. 

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah for information and for guidance.