SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

1. The instant consumer case has been instituted by the complainant against the sole opposite party praying for certain reliefs as prayed for.
2. The record has been taken up for admission hearing.
3. We have heard the ld. advocate appearing for the complainant at length and in full.
4. We have meticulously perused the materials available on record.
5. It appears from the four corners of the record that one development agreement has been executed by and between the complainant/landowner and the developer and the same has also been registered on 30/11/2015 in the office of ADSR, Sealdaha for the purpose of construction of multi-storied building upon the proposed land given by the owner/complainant to the op/developer. It has been promised at the behest of the op/developer to complete the aforesaid multi-storied building within 24 months from the date of sanctioned building plan or receipt of vacant of the premises free from tenants which would be later.
6. It is admitted that one power of attorney has been executed by the parties herein and the same has also been registered in the office of ADSR on 28/08/2019. By virtue of the said power of attorney the landowner/complainant has already entrusted all rights upon the op/developer to do some acts, deeds, matters and things which are clearly described in the said instrument.
7.  From the four corner of the record it is clear to us that there are certain claims at the behest of the complainant including delivery of completion certificate.
8. In the petition of complaint, the complainant has stated that the cause of action has been arisen on 15/07/2022 when a letter addressed to the opposite party/developer has been issued by the complainant.     
9. At this juncture whether there is a prima facie case against the opposite party or not that should be decided by us on the basis of following observations.
10. It is admitted that the development agreement has been executed and registered in the year 2015. Having heard the ld advocate and upon careful perusal of the relevant documents, it is crystal clear to us that the op/developer has failed to complete the construction work within the prescribe period of time. So ultimately the cause of action has been arisen in the year 2018 ie after expiry of 24 months. Actually the cause of action arises when the complainant suffers from harm and injury due to act done by the opposite party and without any further delay the petition of complaint should be filed by the complainant forthwith. But in this case we find clear delay of near about 5 years in filing the instant consumer case. Knowing every things the complainant have kept themselves mum for considerable period of time and at last he has come before this Commission on 19/04/2023 ie at a belated stage.     
11. In this respect we cite the provision of section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which clearly provides the limitation period. This section clearly provides that the District Commission, State Commission and 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. A petition of complaint may be entertained after the aforesaid period of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the DCDRC or SCDRC or NCDRC, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
12. It appears from the record that no separate petition for condonation of delay has been filed before this Commission. Though the ld advocate appearing for the complainant has submitted a citation in support of his case but in this respect we are of the view that the each and every case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and accordingly the cause of action will be deemed to have arisen on the very particular date when the complainant discovers the harm or injury caused due to act done by the opposite party/parties. 
13. Thus being the situation it should be very practical at the behest of the complainant to rush to the Commission forthwith for getting proper relief/reliefs otherwise the main object of the provision under section 69 of the Act 2019 will be frustrated. The cause of action cannot continue for a long period of time even for life time of the complainant.
14. In the instant case the complainant has tried to create a cause of action by sending a letter dated 14/07/2022. But it is the settled principle of law that mere sending the letter does not create/constitute the repeated or continued cause of action.
15. In this regard we can safely rely upon the decision State of Tripura and others vs Arabinda Chakraborty and others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 460 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “in our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitations. Simply by making a representations, 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..........”  
16. The Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Shah vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd reported in III (2006) CPJ 414 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to hold that no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.
17. In State Bank of India vs B.S. Agriculture Industries reported in II(2009) CPJ 29 SC, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the complainant is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay, the Consumer Forum will have no option but to dismiss the same.
18. In view of aforesaid observations and views, we are constrained to dismiss the instant consumer case at the admission stage without any order as to costs.
19. The instant CC case stands dispose of.
20. Note accordingly.
21. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the complainant free of cost.