TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he agreed amount. Despite various requests made, the appellant did not execute the sale deed on false pretexts. In the absence of the sale deed, the respondent- complainant could not efficaciously enjoy the property for which she is stated to have paid the price. It was submitted that as the construction of the flat was sub-standard, the respondent-complainant had to incur an expense of ₹ 26,000/- for immediate repairs. Her petition filed on 19.6.1992 was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum ) on the ground of limitation vide order dated 19.10.1992. The appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless the same was filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Sub-section (2) of Section 24A authorises the Commission to entertain complaint even after the period of limitation on the existence of sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the statutory period by recording its reasons for condoning the delay. It is conceded before us that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 have not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The Limitation Act does not extinguish a right but only bars the remedy after a prescribed period of limitation. Section 2(j) of the Limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and (f) right to consumer education. The addition of Section 24A in the Act reflects the mind of the Legislature that they had initially not intended to prescribe any period of limitation for filing the complaints under the Act. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellants on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri B.N. Sainani [JT 1997(6) SC 211] also appears to be misplaced inasmuch as this Court in that case had only referred to the practice of the Consumer Commissions of applying the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is important to note that this Court did not approve the application of the Limitation Act to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rging that the claim preferred by the respondent-complainant was barred by time. It is true that the Agreement was executed somewhere in 1983 and the possession of the premises delivered to the respondent-complainant in 1985. It is also evident that at no point of time the appellants denied their liability to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent. No period for specific performance of Agreement had been prescribed by the parties. The record produced before the authorities under the Act reveals that the appellant had upto 30th August, 1991, been acknowledging liability to deliver the legal possession of the flat to the respondent. Vide a notice sent to the respondent by the appellants through their counsel on 30th August, 1991 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
