RAMRATAN M SHRIWAS Vs. JAYANT H THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai ( State Commission for short) by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. Petitioner herein is the complainant who had purchased flat from the OP/respondent herein who is the builder. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs in not honoring their lawful commitments made in the agreement entered into by them with the petitioner, the petitioner lodged a consumer complaint with the District Forum. As per the admitted position, an agreement was made by the OP with the petitioner on 21.1.1992. In pursuance of this agreement, the accommodation/flat was provided by the OP to the petitioner on 16.6.1993. Since the petitioner found that the OP builder had not honored a number of commitments made by him in the agreement, he lodged the complaint in question on 23.3.98 vide consumer complaint no.133/98 with the District Forum. The petitioner/complainant made a number of prayers in his complaint and requested the District Forum to grant them against the OP/respondents. On being noticed, the OP resisted the complaint and alleged suppression of material facts on the part of the complainant. It was submitted by the OP that the complainant himself failed to comply with the alleged agreement dated 21.1.1992 and also failed to pay balance consideration. Besides this, the OP also raised the point that the complaint was barred by limitation as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application for condonation of delay which was also replied and objected to by the OP. The District Forum, therefore, considered the issue regarding the limitation first and after perusing the documents placed by the respective parties before it, dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal of the complainant/petitioner and upheld the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Both the fora below have dismissed the complaint through their well-reasoned orders. The State Commission while upholding the order of the District Forum has recorded the following reasons in support of its order:-

(2.) We agree with the view taken by the fora below. It is well established by catena of judicial pronouncements that once a period of limitation starts, it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties. The provision regarding limitation period contained in section 24A being of mandatory nature, the fora below was duty bound to determine whether the complaint is within the limitation period and since on consideration of the material placed before them, they found that the complaint was barred by limitation and sufficient cause had not been made out to condone the delay in question, no fault could be found with the impugned orders.

(3.) We have gone through the record of the case and also heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent chose to remain absent and hence has been proceeded ex parte. The only point involved in the present revision petition is in respect of the limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that there was continuous and long correspondence between the parties and hence it is the case where there was a continuing cause of action. We are not impressed by the arguments since they have already been duly considered by the fora below. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in a recent judgement delivered in the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries, 2009 5 SCC 121:-