SURINDER MOHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a lease-hold booth in auction and he was allotted the same vide allotment letter dated 18.4.1992. The appellant raised the construction over the booth site but it is his case that the respondents have not provided the basic amenities in terms of Punjab Development and Regulation Act and Chandigarh Lease Holds Sites and Building Rules. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who dismissed it on two grounds, namely, that the complaint has been filed after 8 years of the allotment, hence barred by limitation as also on the ground that the complainant has already made a representation before the Advisor to the Chief Administrator. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us,

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that the allotment letter of the booth was issued way back in April, 1992 and complaint has been filed in 1999. Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, envisages filing a complaint within 2 years from the cause of action. No application for condonation of delay was filed before the State Commission and for that matter not even before us. The only plea taken before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there has been continued cause of action. On our specific query, not even a piece of evidence has been led before us to show that he has been exchanging correspondence with the respondent on the point at issue. In fact, we see nothing on record as to what transpired between 1992 and 1999 when the complaint was filed? Law provides a limitation of two years from the date of cause of action. We are inclined to give some leeway to the consumer provided he is able to satisfy us that he had been guarding his interest. In this case, no such document or any other evidence has been produced before us. Hence we see no merit as far as this plea is concerned and complaint is clearly barred by limitation as rightly held by the State Commission.