Smt. Champa Das. filed a consumer case on 18 Feb 2020 against The Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank & Others. in the West Tripura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/11/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Feb 2020.
Tripura
West Tripura
CC/11/2019
Smt. Champa Das. - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank & Others. - Opp.Party(s)
Mr.A.K.Pal.
18 Feb 2020
ORDER
Learned Advocates for the Complainant and the O.P. Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 are present.
Heard Learned Advocate for the Complainant regarding admission of the petition dated 11.02.2020 U/S 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of 450 days delay in filing the case bearing No. CC-11/2019 which had actually been filed before the Forum long back on 26.02.2019.
Learned Advocates for the O.Ps have vehemently objected to the condonation petition stating that the complainant ought to have filed this petition at the time of filing the complaint before the Forum on 26.02.2019.
It is also submitted by them that the Hon'ble State Commission by order dated 20.12.2019 upon the Revision Application filed on behalf of the O.P. Gramin Bank challenging the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by this Forum has already recorded finding while allowing the Revision Petition that the complaint which was filed by the complainant is not maintainable on the point of limitation.
We have considered the submissions of both sides.
We have gone through Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which deals with the matter of limitation prescribed for filing complaint. As stipulated in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant ought to have filed her complaint petition along with the condonation petition U/S 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay as she could not file the complaint within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.
In the instant case the Hon'ble State Commission has already recorded a clear findings that the complaint petition (of the complainant) can not be entertained beyond the stipulated period of 2 years as prescribed in the statute without any condonation petition.
Since the complainant did not file the petition U/S 5 of the Limitation Act at the time of filing her complaint, we are constrained to reject the petition filed by the complainant U/S 5 of the Limitation Act at this belated stage.
Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.