AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT is an appeal against the order dated 25.4.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter called the District Forum).
DISTRICT Forum in its order dated 25.4.2000 had allowed the complaint with costs with a direction to the opposite party (appellant before us) to pay the maturity amount of the FDR along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its maturity, i.e. 17.12.1992 till realisation. Costs of Rs. 500/- was also awarded to the complainant. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjiv Bansal has challenged the order of the District Forum on several grounds. The main being- (1) that the complaint before the District Forum was hopelessly time barred. The cause of action, if any, had arisen to the complainant on 17.12.1992. The period of two years permissible for filing the complaint under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) had expired in the year 1994 itself and the complaint has been filed on 10.11.1998; (2) no FDR was issued to the complainant by the opposite party at all. The alleged FDR is a fabricated document. The entire fraud has been played by the complainant in connivance with her husband, namely Satpaul Kakkar, who was the Hony. Secretary of the Society at the relevant time; (3) as the complainant had not hired the services of the opposite party as such she was not the consumer of the opposite party.
THE learned Counsel thus contends that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum be set aside and the complaint be dismissed. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) submits that the complaint before the District Forum was not barred by time. The cause of action had accrued to the complainant against the opposite party firstly on the date of maturity and it arose daily when the amount had become due for payment and the cause of action had arisen only one day before the filing of the complaint when the opposite party had refused to make the payment of the maturity amount. In short, according to the learned Counsel the complainant had a continuing cause of action. The learned Counsel has vehemently denied the other contentions made by the Counsel for the appellant.
WE do not consider it necessary to mention all the facts and to make any observation on the last two contentions made by the learned Counsel; as according to us, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches only. Admittedly, the FDR in question, had matured and was due on 17.12.1992. It has been so mentioned in the complaint itself. Thus, the cause of action arose to the complainant on the date of maturity of the FDR. The complaint was filed on 10.11.1998. It has, thus, been filed beyond two years as prescribed under Section 24-A of the Act. It is also an admitted fact that no letter/ intimation etc. was sent to the opposite party for the payment of the amount of the FDR till the filing of the complaint. It is also an admitted fact that there is nothing on the record of the case which could show that any assurance was given by the opposite party to release the amount of the FDR along with interest etc. For bringing the complaint under limitation, the District Forum had relied upon an order of the West Bengal State Commission in Sukanta Sarkar v. Canara Bank, 1996 CCJ 148. We have perused the abovesaid order. That order is not applicable to the facts of this case at all. In Sukanta''s case (supra), the complaint was filed as the Bank did not return the full maturity amount and the Bank had never denied or rejected the claim of the complainant; but had always assured the repayment of the balance amount. In the case in hand both these elements are missing. No assurance was given by the opposite party to pay the amount of the FDR. Even the complainant had also not approached the opposite party before filing the complaint. There is no evidence in that regard on the file. We do not know as to from where the District Forum has stated in para No. 18 of the order that the opposite party had never denied or decided the claim of the complainant; rather had always assured the complainant to pay maturity amount of the FDR subject to availability of funds with the opposite party. This observation of the District Forum is not based on any record. In view of our discussion made above, we find weight in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum was highly belated. Consequently, we accept this appeal and set aside the order dated 25.4.2000 of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint of the respondent filed before the District Forum. Appeal allowed.