National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the first appeal and upheld the order of State Commission saying that the complaint filed is bitterly barred by limitation.
The appellant named as “Raj Kumar” had filed the First Appeal before the Hon’ble Members of NCDRC namely, Hon’ble Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member challenging the order of the State Commission Delhi. The respondent was the “Delhi Development Authority”, Vikas Sadan.
The brief facts are that the DDA had allotted flat to Shri. Dalbir Singh from whom the appellant became the General Power of Attorney holder of the allotted flat and the conveyance deed was executed in the name of the appellant. Later on the appellant and complainant in the state commission stated that he was compelled to pay Rs 11,18,848/- through a demand letter after the allotment for the construction cost. Subsequently the appellant in the present case made a compliant in the State Commission where by the state commission dismissed the complaint by saying that the limitation for filing a consumer complaint is two years under Section 24 A Consumer Protection Act. Complaint filed later on is bitterly barred by limitation. Complainant himself had moved an application for condonation of delay. The application does not disclose any cogent ground for condonation of delay and stands dismissed along with the complaint. After being aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission, Complainant filed an First Appeal before National Commission.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the First Appeal stating that the state commission inter alia observed that the application to condone the delay in filing the case before it did not disclose “any cogent ground for condonation of delay”. It is well evinced that sufficient cause to condone the delay was not forthcoming. Therefore, the state commission was right and well appraised in its decision with a finding that the case was “bitterly barred by limitation”.
-Pulkit Atal