DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan , C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.115/2024

Smt. Sarika

W/o Shri Vipin Kumar

R/o J-10B, East Vinod Nagar

Near Gurudwara, Patparganj, Chilla

East Delhi, Delhi-110091.                                              .…Complainant

                                                 VERSUS

The Vice Chairman

Delhi Development Authority (DDA)

LAB (Residential)

Vikas Sadan, INA Delhi.

The Deputy Director

Delhi Development Authority (DDA)

LAB (Residential)

Vikas Sadan, INA Delhi.                                       ….Opposite Parties

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present:      Adv. Shahnawaz Malik for the complainant.

ORDER

Date of Institution:25.04.2024

Date of Order       :07.10.2024

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

Complaint was filed by the complainant and opportunities were given to the complainant on various occasions to prove that the complaint was filed within time.  After considerable lapse of time, an application for condonation of delay of 569 days in filing the complaint has been filed.

This Commission has gone through the contents of the condonation of delay application. The reason provided for the delay is that the complainant was advised complete bed rest from 06.07.2020 to 04.08.2020.  In this regard, complainant has annexed a certificate of physician but it does not specify ‘bed rest’ but ‘rest’.  The complainant has not given any proper reason for her not filing the complaint after August 2020 till 2024 apart from the fact that she was writing emails to the OP.  In her application for condonation of delay, complainant has stated that the last cause of action arose on 19.08.2020 and that there is a delay on 596 days. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghvairah Vs. National Insurance Company C.A No. 4962/2002 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on their own judgment passed in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries 2009 5 SCC 121 has held

“11. …………It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is pre-emptory in nature and requires a consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action of the consumer forum, however, for the reasons be recorded in writing may condone may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown.  The expression, ‘shall not admit the complaint’ occurrence in section 24-A is a sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within a limitation period prescribed therein”.

12……In other words it is a duty of the consumer forum to take notice of 24-A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides a complaint on merits, the forum would be committing a illegality , therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such an order set side”.

Section 69 of the consumer Protection Act 2019 is the provision dealing with limitation which is verbatim Section 24-A of the 1986 Act. Placing reliance on the above judgment, this Commission is of the view that the cause of action has arisen on 19.08.2020 but she has not given plausible explanation for not preferring a complaint within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action which may be condoned therefore, the complaint is dismissed being time barred.

  Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.