YESH PAUL GOYAL Vs. IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Bhatinda, dated 16.12.1992 dismissing his complaint with the observations that keeping in view the complex nature of dispute, where number of questions of facts and law are involved and which cannot be determined only by leading detailed evidence and the proper course to be adopted by the complainant would be to file a suit in the Civil Court for claiming the necessary relief prayed in the complaint and further that in the instant case the complainant has sought relief, including direction to the S. H. O. of the Police Station to register a case under Sections 420/406/468/120-B I. P. C. and for claiming the said relief advising the complainant to go directly to the police for getting the criminal process set into motion, the complainant has filed the present appeal before us.

(2.) We have heard Shri T. L. Goyal, Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel has fairly conceded that the complainant is challenging the order dated 10.9.1985 vide which his plot was resumed and he has filed the present complaint before the District Forum, Bhatinda on 6.8.1991.

(3.) The learned Counsel has tried to push back the unsurmountable barrier of limitation in filing the complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by contending that the complainant can come to the District Forum at any time. The assertion of the learned Counsel evaporates in the face of catena of Judgments passed by the Hon'ble National Commission laying down that the principle of Limitation Act applies to the complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act. The observations of the National Commission in the case - Mrs. R. D. Chinoy V/s. Central Bank of India, 1992 2 CPJ 557; are quoted below:-