Heard the counsel for the complainant regarding admission of this complaint.   The complainant has presented this complaint against the Op complaining deficiency in their service with a prayer for direction to the Ops to allot him a site measuring 60’X 80’ and also to award compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs besides awarding cost etc., The learned counsel representing the complainant in the course of arguments submitted that in the year 1997 Ops expressing their inability to allot a site admitted to have refunded Rs.1,02,000/- itself out of Rs.1,44,000/- paid by the complainant.   It seems that the Ops had not assigned any reason for having not returned the entire amount paid by the complainant.

        The complainant after receipt of Rs.1,02,000/- in the year 1997 found to have not agitated for refund of balance money and found to have slept over or kept quite about remaining amount payable.   Thereafter, it is found and admitted, that the complainant did not even demand in writing for refund of the money and we find no correspondences between the parties thereafter.   However counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant had orally demanded for refund of money which is not substantiated.   Complainant being a retired official of a Private Company, it is not as if the complainant was not aware of his right to remind or to demand for refund of the balance amount.   That being the fact, complainant now after lapse of 14 years cannot present this complaint particularly for a direction for allotment of a site and the question of refund of money also do not arise as the complainant did not file this complaint within two years from the date of partial refund of the money and same is now barbed by limitation.  No copy of limitation is filed for condonation of delay.  Hence, complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission as it is highly barbed by limitation.