N.Venkata Lakshmamma,
W/o.Ramanuja Chary, Occ: Pvt.employee
R/o.H.No.19-8/1, Aanmol Paradise, Flat No.202,
Near V.V. Nagar Bus Stop,
Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad. …… Complainant
And
M/s. GPR Housing Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director
R/o.G-128, Ground Floor, H.No.8-3-224/11/D/4,
Madhura Nagar, G-Block 128,
Near Yousufguda Basthi,
Hyderabad. .... Opposite party

This Petition coming on 02-04-2009 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri G.Upender Rao, Counsel for Complainant and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Hon’ble President, Sri M.Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy on behalf of the Bench)
1. This is a Petition filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for condoning the delay of 494 days in filing the complaint.

2. The Complainant in her affidavit affirmed that she joined as a member in the Venture of the opposite party on 27-02-2005 by paying Rs.87,500/- which was paid towards purchase of a plot in GPR Millenium meadows situated at Peddashapoor village, Shamshabad in Ranga Reddy District. She also paid Rs.6,000/- towards the registration charges. However, the opposite party failed to register the plot. Finally she got issued a legal notice dated 18-11-2008 demanding registration. There was no reply

3. With regard to the delay, the complainant came out with a reason that she suffered massive heart attack and was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, that after taking treatment, she was discharged and was advised bed rest and medication and that therefore she could not file the complaint within time. Even according to the petitioner /complaint, there is the delay of 494 days in filing this complaint.

4. The Point for consideration is whether the petitioner /complainant could make out that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation so as to invoke section 24 A of C.P. Act 1986.

5.Point:-Section 24 A(1) mandates that the complaint should not be admitted if it is not filed within 2 years from the date of which, the cause of action has arisen. Section 24 A (2) provides relaxation for section 24 A(1). If the complainant satisfies the District Forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period, the same could be entertained.

6. There is a proviso to this section to the effect that the Forum should record reasons for condoning the delay.

7. Now it has to be seen as to whether the complainant could convince the Forum that she has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the stipulated period. The complainant has enclosed the discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad to convince this Forum that she was hospitalized for her heart ailment. As seen from the discharge summary, she was admitted on 24-12-2005 and was discharged 5 days later i.e., on 29-12-2005. She was prescribed with some medicines and was advised to go to the hospital for review 3 days thereafter. So, from this document it can be said that the complainant, would have attended the hospital on his mother from 24-12-2005 to 01-01-2006 i.e., for a period of 8 days.

8. She could not produce any record to show that she had taken any action in the meanwhile till 18-11-2008 when she got issued a legal notice. So, even by 18-11-2008 more than 3 years had elapsed ever since after her payment of Rs.6,000/- towards registration charges on 24-10-2005. She filed this complaint on 02-02-2009. There is absolutely no explanation as to why she could not file the complaint for years together. Even after her discharge she he waited for more than 3 years. After all, the Hospitalization was for only 5 days and as such it cannot be the cause much less a sufficient one for not filing the complaint in time. There is the huge delay of 494 days and the same has not been explained to the satisfaction of this Forum. The principle goes that a person coming to the FORA with a petition for condonation of delay, has to explain each day’s delay. The complainant could not fulfill the said principle. So, we cannot condone the delay as the petitioner failed to make out or place any material to show that she had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint in time.

9. In the result, this petition is dismissed no costs.