Heard Counsel for the complainant on the question of limitation.

          Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted before us that though the claim was repudiated by the opposite party by letter dated 20.10.2004,  yet  the  opposite  party  had  on  5.1.2005 sent a letter to the

-2-

Federal Bank asking for filing of required documents within fifteen days. According to counsel for the complainant the period of limitation would start running from 5.1.2005. The limitation is sought to be explained in the application for condonation of delay on the following grounds: -

“1. That from April 2004 to June 2007 the complainant was under treatment of Dr. K. Sadasivan, Assistant Surgeon, Kerala Government Health Services for hip joint pain and arthritis etc.

2. That the complainant had file writ petition before Kerala High Court in July, 2007 but in November, 2007 the Kerala High Court suggested the complainant to approach the National Commission.

3. Thereafter the complainant came to Delhi around 3^rd December, 2009 though he was still not physically fit and the complaint was ultimately filed on 24.5.2010.”

 The learned counsel for the complainant states that there 5 months was delay in filing the complaint on his behalf. In respect of the illness relating to hip joint pain and arthritis, it is submitted by counsel for the complainant that on account of same, the complainant was not in a position to undertake journey. We are not inclined to accept this submission of counsel for the complainant since the ailment for which the certificate has been filed is only for hip joint pain and arthritis and it nowhere states that the complainant was advised complete bed rest during

-3-

the said period. The medical certificate is dated 20.6.2007 for the period 1.4.2004 to 30.6.2007. There is another medical certificate dated 12.12.2009 for the period 1.8.2007 to 30.1.2009. The affidavits are tailor made and there is no affidavit of doctor issuing the same nor any prescription and bills of purchase of medicines are filed. Even otherwise, the complainant could have instructed for the filing of the complaint in case he was not able undertake the journey. Surprisingly the Complainant was fit to undertake journey for filing the writ petition before the Kerala High Court in July, 2007.  Instead of filing complaint before the Commission, the complainant approached the Kerala High Court in July, 2007. The complaint in relation to consumer disputes is required to be filed before the Consumer Fora in view of the Consumer Protection Act and obviously the filing of the writ petition before the Kerala High Court would not in any manner help the complainant in condoning delay. We are informed that the writ petition is still pending before the Kerala High Court and the complaint was filed on 24.5.2010.

We are not satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out by the complainant for condoning delay of three years and four months as stated by the complainant himself in the condonation application.

-4-

In view of this, the condonation application is dismissed and consequently the complaint cannot be entertained on account of the complaint being barred by limitation.

Resultantly, the complaint is not admitted.