WERNER POHLE Vs. ARAVIND V MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry, dated 10.6.1998 passed in C. No.10/98, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) The District Forum raised two points for consideration. The first point considered being whether the complaint filed is time barred The first point alone was taken up for consideration by the District Forum. The Forum held that the complaint is barred by limitation and also held that the complaint had been filed long after the period of limitation prescribed by law.

(3.) In the present revision petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that originally the complaint was presented before the State Commission which was entertained, notice was ordered to the other side and at the stage of hearing the complainant restricted his total claim to Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence the complaint was returned to the complainant to be presented before the District Forum. Thereafter the complaint was presented before the District Forum within the time prescribed. It has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that before the State Commission no objection as to limitation has been raised and the State Commission entertained the complaint as it was obviously satisfied that the complaint is not barred by limitation. Be that so, before the District Forum the respondents raised the plea of limitation which has been considered and the District Forum held that the complaint is barred by limitation.