AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NEITHER the appellant nor his Counsel was present when the appeal was first called for hearing. We suomotu passed over the case and again took it up only after all the other cases in today''s list were exhausted. Even then the appellant and his Counsel remained absent.
WE have gone through the records of the case and it is clear from the papers produced in the case that the amount of the deposit in question became payable to the appellant as early as in 1978but the appellant has preferred the complaint before the State Commission only in 1992. In the circumstances, the State Commission was perfectly right in rejecting the claim as hopelessly barred by limitation. It may also be observed that the valuation given in the complaint petition by the appellant is manifestly highly inflated because even if the interest was to be calculated on the deposit right from the inception till 1992 the amount comes to only about Rs. 85,000/- and whereas the valuation put by the appellant in the complaint petition is Rs.8.24 lacs. We are making mention of this fact because such a tendency to inflate the value so as to pick and choose the Redressal Forum is now-a-days showing up frequently. This wrong practice is to be strongly discouraged and deprecated. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.