Consumer complaint limitation under consumer law rejected where liability was acknowledged and relief for specific performance stood upheld.

Before insertion of Section 24A, consumer complaints were not subject to any prescribed statutory limitation period, and the later amendment indicated that the Limitation Act was not originally intended to apply by implication. On the facts found, the appellants had acknowledged liability up to 30 August 1991, so the complaint was not time-barred. The directions for specific performance were also upheld because the agreement had been acted upon by delivery of possession, liability to execute the sale deed was not denied, and no jurisdictional error or material irregularity was shown in revision. The consumer fora's relief was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the directions for specific performance suffered from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

Issue (i): Whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Prior to insertion of Section 24A, the consumer legislation did not prescribe any limitation period for filing complaints. The subsequent insertion of Section 24A indicated that the legislature had not originally intended to import the Limitation Act by implication. Even assuming the Limitation Act applied, the record showed that the appellants had acknowledged their liability up to 30 August 1991, and the complaint filed thereafter could not be treated as time-barred on the facts found.

Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the directions for specific performance suffered from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

Analysis: The agreement had been acted upon by delivery of possession and the complainant had asserted payment of the consideration. The findings of fact recorded by the consumer fora showed no denial of liability to execute the sale deed and no basis to interfere with the order granting relief. No jurisdictional error or material irregularity was shown in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The directions for specific performance did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The consumer fora were justified in granting relief, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Before insertion of Section 24A, complaints under the consumer legislation were not governed by a prescribed statutory limitation period, and where the claim is otherwise within time on the facts, consumer relief cannot be denied on a supposed implication of the Limitation Act.

---