Managing Director Dharmapuri District Co Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd vs Special Officer/Joint Registrar , General Manager,Dharmapuri District

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in C.C. No. 2/2005 - The Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. The Special Officer/Joint Registrar, Dharmapuri District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. by which complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant maintained Bank Account with the respondents no. 3 and 4 and gave directions to transfer funds from one account to another account. The respondents failed to transfer items from serial no. 1 to 8 for the period from 2.4.1997 to 29.11.1999 totalling Rs.67,50,000/- and this lapse was found out while doing reconciliation for annual audit. On 19.5.2001, the appellant asked the respondents to credit the amount and pay interest but the respondents only credited the amount and refused to pay interest. Hence, complaint was filed for claim of Rs.30,55,364.38 as interest on account of deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and further held that the complainant failed to establish deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.

HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused record.

THIS appeal has been filed with inordinate delay of 297 days. Appellant moved application for condonation of delay and alleged that copy of the order dated 5.5.2011 was received by the appellant on 12.9.2011 and appellant was advised to file appeal before this Commission. It was further alleged that attempt was made to find a counsel in Delhi and getting the documents translated and in this process delay occurred. Apparently, no satisfactory explanation has been given for delay of 297 days in filing appeal and learned Counsel for the appellant could not satisfy on the ground of delay. Learned Counsel for the appellant simply argued that the appellant is a Cooperative Society of small milk producers and they were not aware about limitation. This cannot be an excuse for condoning inordinate delay of 297 days. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

AS far merits of the case are concerned, the learned State Commission has observed that there was neither deficiency of service nor complaint was filed in time. As per audit inspection, fact of not crediting the amount came to the knowledge of the applicant on 19.5.2001 and request for granting interest was also rejected on 23.5.2001 and in these circumstances, complaint ought to have been filed on or before 23.5.2003 but the complaint was filed on 20.8.2004, meaning thereby complaint was filed after 17 months and the State Commission has rightly observed that appellant-complainant failed to take any step for condonation of inordinate delay and rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by time. Consequently, the appeal as well as the original complaint being time barred, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage. There will be no order as to costs.