IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL No.5097 of 2002

Krishna Kant Singh @ Baristar Singh .....Appellant(s)

     Versus     

Sasaram Bhabhua Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. .....Respondent(s)

                            O R D E R     This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is  

directed  against  the  final  order  dated  10th July,  2002  passed  by  the  National  

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission  (hereinafter  referred  to  as   'the  

Commission') in O.P. No.171 of 1996.

By the impugned order the complaint filed by the appellant has been  

dismissed by the Commission on the ground that it was barred by limitation.  The  

Commission has noted that the claim made on the Bank was lastly on 16th May,  

1994  and  the  complaint  was  filed  on  26th August,  1996,  which  was  obviously  

beyond the period of limitation.

We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.   Mr.  Shiv  Pujan  

Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously urged  

that  the  Commission  has  erred  in  not  condoning  the  delay  in  preferring  the  

complaint because there was sufficient cause for the delay.  It is pleaded that the  

appellant was arrested in some case on 5th June, 1994;  he remained in custody for  

a

..2/-

:2:

period of about eight months and was released on bail only on 4th February, 1995

and  therefore,  he  was  prevented  by  a  sufficient  cause  in  not  preferring  the  

complaint within time.

In  the  light  of  the  facts  found  by  the  Commission,  we  are  not  

persuaded to agree with the learned counsel.  It is manifest that the Commission  

was not oblivious of the fact that the appellant was in jail till 4th February,  1995.  

As a matter of fact, taking note of the factum of arrest of the appellant and his  

release on bail on 4th February, 1995, the Commission has observed that since 19th  

December,  2001 it  had been asking  the  appellant  to  produce  the  evidence  by  

means of an affidavit to explain the delay in filing of complaint on 26th August,  

1996 after his release on 4th February, 1995.  However, no affidavit was filed on  

behalf of the appellant.  Under the circumstances, the Commission had no option  

but to dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation.   

We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting our  

to interference.  The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

....................J.          [ D.K. JAIN ]   

                                ....................J.                                     

[ R.M. LODHA ]        NEW DELHI,      MARCH 26, 2009.