Appellant was the Complainant before the State Commission where he filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the Respondent/Opposite Party. Briefly stated,the fact leading to filing of complaint as expounded by the Appellant/Complainant, was that he passed ICWA intermediate in March, 1981 and appeared for the final examination both, Group I and II towards beginning of 1989 under the revised syllabus. He passed Group I in June, 1991 for which the mark sheet was not sent till December, 2003 by the Respondent/Opposite Party, thus, depriving him the ..2.. benefit of his additional qualification for that long years. The Appellant’s contention was that had he been given the mark sheet in time/declared passed in time then he could have easily become the Director or Finance Officer with a multi national company. A legal notice was issued by the Appellant in June, 2004, the reply to which was given by the Opposite Party in September, 2004. It is stated that they have already sent the mark sheet in time through ordinary post as per their record. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the Respondent, a complaint was filed before the State Commission praying for compensation of Rs.5 crore but he restricted the claim to Rs.5 lakh. The Respondent/Opposite Party filed written version and stated that the examination was conducted in 1991 and the complaint was filed after lapse of 16 years in July, 2006 as it is time-barred. However, the State Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on merit. Hence, this First Appeal before us. ..3.. Since the Appellant was in person we gave the attention to the amended portion of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced below :- 24A.Limitation period. (1) The District Forum, 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 Forum, 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 National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.” It is not in dispute that examination was held in June, 1991 and as per the Appellant, the result was not declared till, 2003 yet he filed complaint in July, 2006. As per requirement of law, no application for condonation of delay was filed before the State Commission by the Appellant and as per requirement of law, as reproduced above, under Section 24A it was incumbent upon the Appellant/Complainant to seek condonation of delay. Before us, a plea is taken by the Appellant, who is appearing in person, that ..4.. he has been making correspondence during this period but no evidence has been produced. Be that as it may, exchange of correspondence, in any way, does not extend the period of limitation. The Complainant having not made no such application seeking condonation of delay and the complaint having been filed after 16 years of the cause of action, is not maintainable and is
clearly barred by limitation. In view of this, First Appeal has no merit and is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
......................JS.N. KAPOORPRESIDING MEMBER
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
