AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE heard the appellant and perused the records.
ONE of the grounds on which the appellant''s complaint was dismissed that the cause of action on which it was based was barred by limitation. The appellant who argued the appeal in person agrees that if this view is right no other question arises. We will therefore consider the former question. The sheets to which the complaint relates are stated to have been damaged on 22.4.1987 when the building on which they had been laid collapsed. The complaint was filed before the District Forum only on 18.6.1990. This was 3 years after the cause of action.The District Forum held that as the cause of action had become barred the complaint could not be entertained.
The appellant contended that the Limitation Act does not apply to the Consumer Forums and therefore the view taken by the District Forum is wrong. What the District Forum has said is that as the cause of action had become barred it could not be entertained. Now what can be entertained is only a complaint on a cause of action which is alive and is enforceable. After it has become barred and therefore unenforceable it is pointless for the Forum to entertain it and make an infructous attempt to enforce it. That is obviously what the District Forum meant when it said that on account of the period of limitation the appellant cannot claim any compensation. The National Commission taken the same view in several decisions.
THE appellant then contended that he had filed an appeal before the National Commission and that what he did was to file the appeal before the District Forum after it was returned by the National Commission. It is argued that the appeal was with the National Commission for over 2 years and if that period is excluded, the appeal is within time. But then there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act which permits such exclusion and the Limitation Act which permits it has no application to the Consumer Protection Act. In the absence of an enabling statutory provision the exclusion claimed by the appellant cannot be granted on equitable grounds. THE result is the view taken by the District Forum is right. That being so it is needless to consider the merits of the case. We dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.