HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.2662 of 2007 Between: Padma Sree Chits & Enterprises, Kumargally, Nizamabad, rep. by its Partner Bandi Laxman … Petitioner And The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad Rep. by its Registrar and others … Respondents February , 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in F.A.No.934 of 2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. By virtue of the impugned order dated 16.11.2005, the State Commission has set aside the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad (for short, ‘the District Forum’) and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.24,000/- to the complainant (respondent No.3 herein) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination i.e. 08.7.2000 till the date of realization along with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under: The petitioner is a partner of Padma Sree Chits and Enterprises. Respondent No.3 – complainant had taken membership of two chits of Rs.25,000/- each. The complainant had to pay Rs.1,000/- on each chit for 25 months, but paid the amount only up to 22 months in each chit, thereby he had paid Rs.44,000/-. The petitioner failed to repay the amount paid by the complainant and, therefore, a complaint had been filed before the District Forum being C.D.No.123 of 2002, but the same was dismissed by the District Forum on 06.12.2003 on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the State Commission. After hearing the concerned advocates, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the complaint filed by respondent No.3 was not barred by limitation, as per the provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) and observed that since the complainant has paid Rs.44,000/- on the two chits for 22 months and the petitioner had already repaid Rs.17,500/-, the complainant is entitled to receive back Rs.26,500/-. The State Commission further observed that the petitioner is entitled to foreman’s commission of 5% i.e. Rs.2,500/- under the two chits and after deduction of foreman’s commission, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.24,000/- to respondent No.3. Accordingly, the State Commission passed the impugned order. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and upon going through the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the State Commission is just and proper for the reasons stated hereinbelow: In pursuance of the scheme opted by respondent No.3, he had started paying Rs.1,000/- per month in each chit from 08.06.1998. The said amount was to be paid for 25 months, though, in fact, the complainant paid the amount only for 22 months. As per the scheme, the amount of chit was to be paid after 25 months and, therefore, the amount paid by respondent No.3 was to be repaid in July, 2000, as rightly held by the State Commission. The complaint was filed by respondent No.3 on 28.5.2002. The period of limitation, as per the provisions of Section 24-A of the Act, is two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. The District Forum did not entertain the complaint believing that the chit had commenced on 01.04.1998. On the said basis, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complaint, which had been filed on 28.5.2002, was beyond the period of limitation. The State Commission did not agree with the said finding for the reason that the complainant had paid the first installment on 08.06.1998 i.e. the chit had started in June, 1998 whereas the complaint was filed on 28.5.2002. According to the State Commission, the amount had become payable to the complainant in July, 2000 whereas the complaint had been filed on 28.05.2002 i.e. within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission for the reason that the period of limitation would start from the day on which the cause of action had arisen. For the purpose of determining the said date, one has to look at the date on which the chit had started i.e. the date on which the complainant had started making payment. As the first installment was paid in June, 1998, the amount which had become due and payable to respondent No.3 should be 25 months after 08.6.1998 i.e. in July, 2000. In view of the above facts, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and we are in agreement with the view expressed by the State Commission. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J February , 2008 svs