By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> This complaint coming up for admission hearing was heard in the presence of Advocate C. H. Faslurahman, counsel appearing for complainant and this Forum doth order as under:<br /> <br /> 1. According to complainant he availed the services of opposite party for make and supply of wooden window, Out frames and panel frames during the time of construction of his new house in the year 2001. After completion of work complainant started living in the house from September, 2002 onwards. Six months after he started living in the house complainant noticed defects to the out frames and panel frames of the windows. He realised that these were made of substandard quality wood. Though he brought his grievance to the notice of opposite party and requested to make good the loss opposite party did not accede to his request and hence this complaint, claiming Rs.85,000/- as loss suffered by him.<br /> <br /> 2. Along with this complaint complainant has filed I.A.324/08 to condone the delay of 19 months in filing this complaint. It is urged by the counsel appearing for complainant, that the delay occurred because complainant was employed at Thiruvananthapuram in Special Branch Service. On perusal of averments in complaint it is evident that complainant came to know of the alleged defects in March, 2003 itself. Sec.24-A(1) envisages that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. It is also contained in Sec.24(2) that the complaint may be entered after the period specified in subsection (1) if the complainant satisfies the District Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period. In the present case, the cause of action has accrued against the complainant in March, 2003. The complaint, then ought to have been filed in any case before April, 2005. In the petition it is stated that the delay is of 19 months. This itself is incorrect and the delay is more than three years. The reason stated is that, the complainant was away at Thiruvananthapuram. We do not consider this ground to be sufficiently reasonable for causing such long delay in laying the claim. Thiruvananthapuram is within this State itself. Moreover complainant is an officer in Government Service and not an ordinary lay man. The complaint is not accompanied by any document with respect to transaction, the amount involved or the alleged defects. The terms and conditions of the transaction has not been stated in the complaint. The presence of complainant himself is not necessary to file a consumer complaint. He could have authorised any other person to file it. On behalf of the complainant it was also submitted that opposite party is the Brother-in-law of complainant. For the above reasons we find that complainant has failed to reasonably explain and prove the delay in filing this complaint. I.A.324/08 dismissed accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. In the result we dismiss the complaint as time barred and not maintainable.<br /> <br /> Dated this 25th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br />