State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)

Facts

A complaint was entertained and decided by the consumer fora despite having been filed beyond the two-year limitation prescribed by Section 24A, without any application for condonation of delay or any finding of sufficient cause. The matter reached the Supreme Court on the question whether the fora could adjudicate a time-barred complaint.

Issues

• Is the limitation period under Section 24A mandatory or merely a procedural bar that the forum may overlook?
• Is the consumer forum bound to examine and give effect to Section 24A even if the point of limitation is not raised by the opposite party?

Arguments

The complainant contended the complaint should be decided on merits and limitation was not fatal in the absence of objection. The Bank argued Section 24A is mandatory, ousts jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred complaint, and must be applied by the forum suo motu.

Held

The Supreme Court held that Section 24A is peremptory in nature and casts a duty on the consumer forum to take notice of and give effect to it. A complaint not filed within two years of the accrual of the cause of action is barred unless the complainant shows sufficient cause and the forum, by an order recording reasons, condones the delay. The forum must examine limitation before admitting/proceeding, even if the opposite party does not raise the plea; here the complaint was time-barred and was dismissed.

Ratio decidendi

Section 24A imposes a mandatory two-year limitation; a consumer forum has a duty to dismiss a complaint filed beyond that period unless sufficient cause is shown and delay is condoned by a reasoned order, and it must consider limitation suo motu.

Significance

The leading authority on limitation before consumer fora, repeatedly followed (e.g. Kandimalla Raghavaiah, Anshul Aggarwal) and carried into Section 69 of the CPA 2019. It establishes that limitation is a jurisdictional threshold, not a waivable technicality.

Related