AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has served dasti notice upon the respondent. The service report is taken on record and placed in the file.
The complainant/respondent applied for appointment to the post of Nursing Orderly in ESIC Hospital and ODC (EZ) Joka, Kolkata. An interview letter was sent to him requiring him to appear in the interview scheduled to be held on 13.12.2008. The said letter however, was not delivered to the complainant/respondent, as a result of which, he could not appear for the interview. Alleging negligence on the part of the Post Office, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation quantified at Rs.4.50 lacs.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioners. It was stated in the reply that the letter in question was delivered on 13.12.2008 by Mr. Fued Ahmed who himself had since died on 30.08.2010 while in service. It was thus, admitted in the reply that the letter in question was not delivered to the complainant in time.
The District Forum, vide its order dated 28.05.2013, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.11.2014, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset that having been filed in the year 2012, the complaint was patently barred by the limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. In this regard, he has pointed out that the letter in question having been delivered to the complainant on 13.12.2008, he came to know on that date that he had missed the opportunity to appear in the interview and therefore, a cause of action accrued on that day. He further submitted that even if the cause of action is computed from 19.03.2009 when a written communication was sent to the complainant, the complaint was barred by limitation.
Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides that a complaint shall not be admitted unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The cause of action in this case had actually arisen on 13.12.2008 when the complainant came to know that on account of late delivery of letter, he was unable to appear in the interview scheduled to be held on that date. Even if the limitation is computed from the date on which the written communication was received by the complainant from the Post Office, having been filed in the year 2012, the complaint is clearly barred by limitation.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed as barred by limitation, with no order as to costs. The amount, if any deposited by the petitioners with the District Forum, be refunded to it alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.