At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Dhruv Banerji, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.
The complainant/petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 with the respondent while hiring its services for immigration purposes. The respondent according to the petitioner did not process his Visa and when he applied for refund, only a sum of Rs. 26,000 was refunded to him. Since the balance amount was not refunded to the complainant/petitioner, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the respondent, the said company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order 20.5.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of her complaint, the petitioner is before this Commission.
3. It is an admitted position that out of the sum of Rs. 50,000, a sum of Rs. 26,000 was refunded to her on 13.4.2011. Since the balance amount was not refunded and thus denied on that date, a cause of action to file a consumer complaint accrued to the complainant on that date. The complaint therefore ought to have been instituted on or before 13.5.2013. The complaint, however, came to be filed on 2.3.2015. No application seeking condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint was filed by the petitioner. The provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act being mandatory in nature, the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation. That having not been done, the State Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a continuous cause of action since the respondent failed to refund the balance amount to the petitioner/complainant. I, however, find no merit in the contention. Once a cheque of Rs. 26,000 had been paid and the balance amount of Rs. 24,000 was not refunded, the cause of action finally arose to the petitioner on 13.4.2011. The period of limitation cannot be extended merely by making representations and demanding the payment from the service provider.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had promised to adjust the balance amount in some other service which the petitioner/complainant might avail from them. However, there is no documentary evidence of any su
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ch assurance having been given to the petitioner/complainant. Therefore, an oral plea in this regard cannot be accepted. 6. I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.