LAWS(NCD)-2002-12-147

C.H. VITTAL REDDY Vs. MANAGER, DISTRICT CO

Decided On December 04, 2002
C.H. Vittal Reddy Appellant
V/S
Manager, District Co Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the complainant who is the petitioner before us. His complaint for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was dismissed by the District Forum since it was barred by limitation as provided under Sec. 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended. There was a delay of 183 days in filing the complaint. No sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay. Appeal against the order of the District Forum was filed before the State Commission which also dismissed the same. State Commission observed that the ground for condonation that the complainant was an old man and was bed-ridden for more than six months, was hardly sufficient explanation for condonation of delay and was rightly rejected by the District Forum. It was found that age of the complainant was 60 years. There was nothing on the record to show that the complainant was suffering from any ailment. State Commission, therefore, also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, complainant has now come before us.

(2.) No doubt under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 24-A delay in filing the complaint could be condoned and complaint could be entertained after a period of limitation prescribed under Sub-section (1) and if complainant has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period, then there is a proviso to Sub-section (2) which says that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the Forum records its reason for condoning such delay. This proviso has been put to guard the Forum against liberal exercise of the provisions of condonation of delay when it is a question of filing the complaint. Sec. 24-A we reproduce for ready reference.

(3.) It would be seen that when it is a question of condoning delay in filing appeal either before the State Commission or the National Commission or even the Supreme Court proviso thereunder does not require recording of the reasons for condoning the delay. We reproduce relevant Sections 15, 19 and 23 in juxtaposition to Sec. 24-A reproduced above.