NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION No. 2416 OF 2007
(From the order dated 16.04.2007 in First Appeal No.116 of 2004of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi)
M/s NIIT Ltd.
NIIT House
C – 125, Okhla Phase I Petitioner
New Delhi – 110 020
versus
Ms. Pooja Chugh
Flat No. 9 B, Block B, Pocket U &V Respondent
Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR.ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner Mr. Avanish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. P. K. Chugh, Authorised Representative
Pronounced on 25th May, 2012
ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
This revision petition challenges the order dated 16.04.2007 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’). By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed as under:
“6. Since the District Forum has already awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- the interest awarded on the amount of the fees was not awardable as interest itself is awarded by way of compensation if there is no such term of the contract.
7. In the result, we partly allow the appeal by maintaining the direction to refund the fees with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and enhance cost of proceedings to Rs.10,000/- and set aside the interest awarded by the District Forum. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order”.
2. The respondent had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (in short, ‘the District Forum’) alleging that she got admitted to the 2- year GNIIT Diploma Course on payment of fee of Rs.37,400/- on 14.06.1999. Eventually, at the suggestion of the Centre Head of NIIT, she upgraded to the 3-year GNIIT Diploma Course. She alleged that the said Centre Head assured her and her father that she would be placed in some multi-national company (MNC) for training during the 1- year professional practice (PP) phase, immediately after completing the 2-year Course and she might also get a job in the same MNC. However, despite further payment of Rs.26,700/- in order to do some extra courses to enhance her prospects and continuous follow-up (during which she and her father were made to run around from one centre of OP to another), she could not get any job. She thus alleged, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the NIIT.
3. The petitioner, which was the opposite party (OP) before the District Forum, contested the allegations and averred that after completion of the 2-year Course, the complainant was sent for PP at ATL Company. However, she was unable to clear the interview. Subsequently, she was provided PP at NIIT, Model Town in 2001 as a Faculty member. Yet, she left the job for reasons best known to her. She was called twice thereafter for assignments in different companies but refused to appear for the interviews. The OP further stated that it provided PP to its students only in such companies and organisations where the student’s progress could be monitored and assessed. Denying any deficiency in service, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant also filed a rejoinder to the written version of the OP.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum held the OP guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to refund the full fee with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit and also pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation. These amounts were directed to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the OP was required to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the whole amount. It was this order of the District Forum that the OP appealed against before the State Commission, with the result noted above.
5. I have heard Mr. Avanish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/OP and Mr. Parveen Kumar Chugh, father of the respondent/complainant on her behalf.
6. It is an admitted position that the respondent/complainant did a 3- year Diploma Course with the NIIT, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, starting sometime in middle of 1996. Out of 3 years, the last 1 year was also admittedly for doing professional practice (PP), opportunities for which had to be provided by the NIIT. Consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner NIIT was, however, filed on 29.10.2002, whereas on completion of one year of PP, the cause of action arose some time in the middle of 1999. Even if it is taken that the cause of action continued till the end of the calendar year 1999, the complaint was filed much after the statutory limitation period of 2 years from the commencement of the cause of action, as provided in section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’). It is also seen that both in the written version as well as in the memorandum of appeal, the petitioner/OP had specifically raised objection that the complaint was time-barred. It is nobody’s case that the complainant filed any application for condonation of delay. Moreover, the orders of both the Fora below are completely silent on this preliminary but important question raised by the petitioner/OP.
7. Section 24A of the Act reads as under:
“24A – Limitation Period - (1) 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 (1), 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.”
8. In discussing the import of the aforesaid section, the Apex Court has observed as under in the case of State Bank of India v B. S. Agriculture Industries(I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121]:
“7. The bank resisted the complaint on diverse grounds, inter alia, (i) that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act, 1986’); (ii) that the complaint was early time barred and beyond the period of limitation; (iii) that the bills and GR’s were returned to B.M. Konar, the Sales Manager of the complainant firm; (iv) that the drawee (M/s Unique Agro Service) had accepted the liability of payment of the bills to the complainant vide letter dated May 11, 1994 and also deposited a cheque to the complainant in that regard.
8. The District Forum framed two points for determination: (one) whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and (two) whether B.M. Konar was authorized agent in collecting the bills and GR’s from the Bank? Pertinently, despite the specific plea having been raised by the Bank that the complaint was time barred, point for determination in this regard was neither framed nor considered.
9. The District Forum held that there was deficiency in service by the Bank and that the Bank was liable to compensate the complainant and consequently, directed the Bank to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,47,154/- with interest @ 15% per annum from April 21, 1994 and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.
10. As stated earlier, the State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum and the National Commission also did not interfere with the concurrent orders of the consumer fora.
11. Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by the consumer fora thus:
“24A. Limitation period – (1) 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 subsection (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), 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.”
It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in section 24A is a sort of legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder.
12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
14. In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K. Sood, (2006) 1 SCC 164, this Court while dealing with the same provision, viz., section 24A of the Act, 1986 held:
“10. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (referred to as the Act hereafter) expressly casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.
11. The section debars any fora set up under the Act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. Neither the National Commission nor the State Commission had considered the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the claim of the respondent was barred by time. According to the complaint filed by the respondent, the cause of action arose when, according to the respondent, possession was received of the booth site and it was allegedly found that an area less than the area advertised had been given. This happened in January 1987. Furthermore, the bhatties which were alleged to have caused loss and damage to the respondent, as stated in the complaint, had been installed before 1989 and removed in 1994. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent in 1997, ten years after the taking of possession, eight years after the cause of alleged damage commenced and three years after that cause ceased. There was not even any prayer by the respondent in his complaint for condoning the delay.
12. Therefore, the claim of the respondent on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint was clearly barred by limitation as the two-year period prescribed by section 24-A of the Act had expired much before the complaint was admitted by the State Commission. This finding is sufficient for allowing the appeal.”
[Emphasis supplied]
9. Given the aforesaid settled position of law, the complaint could not be entertained ab initio by the District Forum, rendering its order and the subsequent order of the State Commission totally unsustainable.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission as well as the District Forum are set aside and the complaint is dismissed as being time-barred. However, considering the small amount involved and the period of time that has elapsed since filing of the complaint, it is hoped that the petitioner would not insist on recovery of any payment that it might have made to the respondent/complainant in the intervening period. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
…………………………………..
[Anupam Dasgupta]
satish
