JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant was an employee of Craigpark Tea Estate and he retired from the service on 02/09/2011. During the tenure of his service he was a member of Opposite Party ( in short O.P.) No.-1 The Secretary-cum- P.F. Commissioner, Office of the Board of Trustees having P.F. No. 666, Code No. C-27. The complainant duly paid his P.F. contribution to statutory funds by way of deducting from his monthly salary in each and every month. That on the date of retirement of the complainant his provident fund accumulation and pensionery benefit was accumulated at an amount of Rs. 8,30,552/- and Rs.3,27,030/- respectively. But the P.F. dues was paid after 918 days and pensionery benefit was paid after 1094 days. As a result, the complainant was deprived from getting interest by depositing the said amount in any bank or financial institution. The complainant faced acute financial crisis due to withholding of payment by the O.Ps. for a long time thereby causing unnecessary harassment, dis-service, mental agony and loss. The complainant has, therefore, prayed for passing award of Rs.4,60,363/- being compensation @15% interest on the P.F. dues and pensionery benefit, an award of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for dis-service, mental agony, pain and harassment and an amount of Rs.20,000/- for cost of the proceeding.
It may be mentioned here that the case proceeded exparte against the O.Ps. In due course, the complainant submitted his evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited number of documents. Thereafter the complainant filed written argument in the case. However, though the O.Ps. did not contest the case but on their behalf learned Advocate Mr. Soumen Choudhury submitted written argument. In the written argument it has been alleged among other things that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation. Under the circumstances we feel it pertinent to decide first the point- whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?
It reveals from the case record that the present complaint was filed on 04/07/2019. In the present case the complainant has claimed interest on the amount of provident fund dues and pensionery benefits received by the complainant and for compensation towards dis-service, mental agony and pain etc. The version of the complainant is that he received P.F. dues and pensionery benefits after 918 days and 1094 days respectively from the date of his retirement. As such ,according to the complainant, as the payment of dues was made after a long time so he is entitled to get interest on the amount. As per provision of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint is required to be filed within two years from the date of arising cause of action. But it is seen that though the complainant received the P.F. dues on 07/04/2014 and pensionery benefit on 30/09/2014 the present complainant was lodged on 04/07/2019 i.e., after a period of two years from the date of receipt of the dues. In this connection the submission of the complainant is that there were sufficient reasons for which the complaint could not be filed within a period of two years after receipt of the dues . The learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the complaint can be filed even after elapse of two years if there are sufficient reasons.
Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended in 2019 reads as follows:- “ 69. Limitation Period- (1) The District Commission, 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 contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) , if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be , records its reasons for condoning such delay. “
So as per provision of the Act a complaint can be entertained even after the stipulated period of two years if the complainant could show that he had sufficient reasons for which he failed to file the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. Admittedly this case has been filed after more than four and half years from the date of receipt of last pensionery benefit on 30/09/2014. It reveals from the case record that the complainant after receipt of the entire dues communicated the O.P. demanding payment of interest on the dues for dalayed payment. In the case the complainant has mentioned two reasons/causes for his delay in filing the complaint. One reason is that his engaged Advocate who gave notice to the O.P. on his behalf was ill during the year 2016 & 2017 as he was admitted in Apollo Hospital and for that he remained absent in his chamber of the District Bar Association. As a result, according to the complainant, he failed to make contact with the Advocate. Another reason mentioned by the complainant is that he was a cardio patient and the doctor advised him not to move frequently from his house to other places and due to that he failed to collect the file from his Advocate and later on after vigorous search he collected the file from his Advocate. To substantiate the fact of his illness the complainant has submitted in the case some prescriptions and test reports vide Ext.-10, Exts.-10(1) to 10(12). From those exhibited medical papers it reveals that the complainant was prescribed medicines by local doctors of this district and also his medical test was conducted locally. There is no any paper to show that the complainant was admitted in any hospital within the State or outside the State for his illness and/or his movement was restricted by any doctor . The medical papers submitted by the complainant regarding his illness do not prove his claim. On the other hand, by filing any documentary and/or oral evidence the complainant has also failed to substantiate the factum of prolong illness of his engaged Advocate and his continuous absence in his chamber of the District Bar Association as well as from his own house which debarred the complainant to collect the file from him. As such what emerges from the above discussion of the evidence available on record is that the grounds/causes stated by the complainant do not justify his long delay in filing the case. Had the complainant been sincere he could have easily filed this case within the stipulated period. Under the circumstances, it is evident from the record that this case is barred by the law of limitation. That being the position it will be a futile exercise to discuss other facts/issues.
In view of the above, the case of the complainant stands dismissed. No cost.
Given under our seal and signature on this 30th day of April’2022.
