National Consumer Disputes RedressalSanjay Singh vs Baby Chandna & 2 Ors. on 8 September, 2015NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 2208-2209 OF 2015     (Against the Order dated 21/05/2015 in Appeal No. 124/2008 & 132/2008     of the State Commission Bihar)        1. SANJAY SINGH  S/O SHRI PARMANAND SINGH, GRAM- MAA KALI ASTHAN VIDHAPATI NAGAR  SAMASTIPUR  BIHAR ...........Petitioner(s)  Versus        1. BABY CHANDNA & 2 ORS.  M/S CHANDNA AUTO CENTRE MOHANPUR ROAD,SAMASTIPUR P.S. & DIST.   SAMASTIPUR  BIHAR  2. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH  S/O SHRI RAJ NARAYAN SINGH@ BANU SAHEB, VILLAGE- MADHOPUR, P.O. CHHATANNA  SAMASTIPUR  BIHAR  3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK  DALSINGSARAI, P.S.DALSINGSARAI  SAMASTIPUR  BIHAR ...........Respondent(s)BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER    HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER 
      For the Petitioner     :      Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocate       For the Respondent      :Dated : 08 Sep 2015  	    ORDER    	    

 PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBERThis revision is directed against the order of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna in first appeal No.124/2008 and 132/2008 whereby the State Commission dismissed appeal No.124/2004 filed on behalf of the complainant and allowed the appeal of the opposite party dealer M/s Baby Chandna Auto Centre No.132/2008 resulting in dismissal of complaint on the ground of limitation.2.       Shorn off unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Pramod Kumar Singh (since deceased) father of the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum alleging that on being approached by opposite party No.2,  Pramod Kumar Singh the late complainant purchased a tractor, cultivator and trailer from opposite party No.1. For that he took loan of Rs.2 Lakhs from opposite party No.3 bank. It is the case of the complainant that for purchase of the tractor, cultivator and trailer the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- in all as consideration amount in various installments. Opposite party No.1 despite of having received consideration for the tractor, cultivator and trailer, delivered the possession of the tractor and cultivator and did not deliver the trailer. It was also alleged in the complaint that opposite party No.1 also failed to issue the sale letter, registration certificate and the insurance policy as a result of which the complainant could not use the tractor and cultivator resulting in loss to him. It may be noted that the complainant had alleged that against the consideration amount he paid Rs.6,000/- in cash without receipt in August, 2001, Rs.80,000/- was paid on 25.9.2001, Rs.2 Lakh were directly paid by the bank as release of loan on 31.1.2002 and on the same day the complainant also delivered a bank draft of Rs.1,29,000/- to opposite party No.1.3.       On receipt of notice opposite parties No.1 & 3 filed written statements denying the allegations made in the complaint. Both of them took the plea that the complaint was barred by limitation. Opposite party No.2 failed to put in appearance despite of service of notice. Therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte.4.       Learned District forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence was of the view that the complaint was filed within limitation. On merits, the District forum found the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and ordered thus: -"Hence, in the light of provisions ofConsumer Protection Act, 1986the defendant No.1 in the face of provisions ofConsumer Protection Act, is held done deficiency in service and Rs.45,000/- and on that from February 2002 upto January, 2003, interest Rs.41,121/- at the rate of 15% per annum, for mental, physical and financial loss items, Rs.50,000/- and under the item of suit expenses Rs.2000/-, the defendant is directed to pay total Rs.1,38,121/- to the plaintiff. In case during the period directed the order is not complied with, then Rs.1,38,121/- from the date of order upto the date of payment, shall be payable with 15% annual interest."5.       Both the parties not being satisfied with the order of the District forum preferred appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the complainant and allowed the appeal No.132/2008 filed by the opposite party No.1 resulting in dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation.6.       Learned Shri Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is based upon the incorrect appreciation of the fact. It is contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the complainant had paid the price for trailer also but the same was not supplied for which several letters were written by the complainant to the opposite parties. It is argued that since the trailer after the receipt of consideration was not supplied by opposite party No.1, the cause of action continued till 24th October, 2005 when the legal notice was issued to the opposite parties. And if the two years limitation as prescribed underSection 24 (A)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is computed from 24th October, 2005, the complaint filed in the year 2006 was well within limitation.7.       We do not find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. If the allegations of the complainant are taken as true, admittedly the complainant paid the consideration amount for tractor, cultivator and trailer in installments between 25th September, 2001 to 30th January, 2002. Admittedly the tractor and cultivator were delivered to the complainant on 31.1.2002. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party No.1 failed to deliver the trailer as also the relevant registration-cum-insurance documents. Thus, cause of action raising dispute regarding non-delivery of the trailer and the relevant documents arose on 31.1.2002 when opposite party No.1 allegedly committed the default.8.Section 24 (A)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the imitation for filing consumer complaint. It is reproduced as under: -Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commis­sion or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.(2)       Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.9.       On reading of the above, it is clear that limitation for filing a consumer complaint before District forum, State Commission or the National Commission is two years from the date of cause of action. It also provides that the Consumer Fora on sufficient reasons being shown can condone such delay. In the instant case cause of action has arisen on 31.1.2002 but the consumer complaint has been filed after a lapse of almost four years in the year 2006. Thus, it is clear that the complaint was filed in consumer forum after the expiry of period of limitation. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 in their respective statements took a categoric plea that the consumer complaint filed by the father of the petitioner was barred by limitation.Despite that no application for condonation of delay was filed. Therefore, we find no fault with order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint, which was filed after a delay of almost two years from the date of expiry of period of limitation. So far as the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that this is a case of continuing cause of action is concerned, it does not hold water. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter ofState Of Orissa vs Pyarimohan Samantaray And Ors., 1697, (1977) 3 SCC 396, has held that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. Relevant observation is reproduced as under: -"It would thus appear that there is justification for the argument of the Solicitor General that even though a cause of action arose to the petitioner as far back as 1962, on the rejection of his representation on November 9, 1962, he allowed some eleven years to go by before filing the writ petition. There is no satisfactory explanation of the inordinate delay for, as has been held by this Court inRabindra Nath Bose and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1972) 2 SCR 697 the mailing of repeated representations, after the rejection of one representation, could not be held to be a satisfactory explanation of the delay. The fact therefore remains that the petitioner allowed some 11 years to go by before making a petition for the redress of his grievances."The cause of action once accrued cannot be extended by a party by just writing demand letters/legal notice.In view of the discussion above, we do not find material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission, which may call for interference. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.......................J  AJIT BHARIHOKE  PRESIDING MEMBER  ......................  REKHA GUPTA  MEMBER