- (1.) WE have heard Mr. Jitendra Ved, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Patel, learned Advocate for respondents at length.
(2.) THE complaint is filed after about twenty -two years. The cheque in question was deposited for clearing in the bank on 6.10.1986. It is alleged that the said cheque was not cleared and deposited in the appellant's account and as such the account holder had complained to the respondents about the same on 20.9.2008. i.e. after seventeen years. The complaint is filed on 10.12.2008. There being no continuing cause or action, the complaint is clearly time -barred. The appellant had not submitted any application for condonation of delay.
(3.) IT is settled legal position that under 'Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a Consumer Fora is under duty to dismiss the complaint filed beyond period of limitation, if sufficient cause for delay is not shown. This legal position gets support from the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries,2009 2 CPJ 29. In this case the complainant has not filed any delay condonation application showing the sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaint. Learned Forum therefore has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. Mr. J.K. Ved has cited before us the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M.K. Krishnamurthi,1998 GLHELSC 18630. This authority is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 24A of C.P. Act are not pari materia the same. In our view the provisions of Section 24A are more strict leaving practically no discretion in the cases where the delay is not sufficiently condoned. Moreover, case of SBI of India, is directly on Section 124A of C.P. Act and it is the latest aay of the Apex Court. Second authority cited by Mr. Ved is the case of Smt. Manorama v. Chairman, Punjab National Bank.3 This is a case of F.D.R. where the cause of action is continuing. Here in the present case we are concerned with a case of non clearing of cheque deposited in the bank on 6,10.1986. This is therefore not a case of continuing cause of action. Both the authorities cited by the appellant are of no help to the appellant. The impugned order is quite legal and proper. It is not required to be disturbed. Under the circumstances, we pass the following order. ORDER Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.;