AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.THE complainant is a firm of merchants in Thiruvananthapuram opposite party No. 1 a Bank, Opposite Party No. 2 is a Cement Manufacturing Company at Secunderabad and opposite party No. 3 is the agent of the 2nd opposite Party at Thiruvananthapuram. For the supply of 450 M. tonnes of non -levy cement by the second opposite party; the complainant sent them Rs. 5,84,000/ - by a demand draft dated 18.5.1985 issued by the 1st opposite party, payable at Vijayawada. As there was no supply of cement the complainant wrote to the
ND opposite party two letters followed by a telegram the same year. The 2nd opposite party replied on 1.9.1985 that they had not received the demand draft. The complainant tried to get back the money from the 1st opposite party who informed them by a letter dated. 8.11.1985 that the Demand Draft had already been paid to the Canara Bank, Gandhi Nagar Branch on 25.5.1985 through clearing and that the question of refunding did not therefore arise. The same position was repeated by the Bank in their latest letter dated 27.11.1990. The complaint was filed on 4.10.1990 to recover the principal amount of Rs. 5,84,000/ -and interest at 10% from the opposite parties. 2. As the claim appeared prima facie to be barred by limitation, we thought it proper to hear the complainant before we entertained it. Accordingly a notice was issued to the complainant and we heard a representative of the complainant. The debt arose on 18.5.1985 and long before the complaint, it had become barred by limitation and thus unforceable. The prayer in the complaint is to enforce payment of the debt and as it has ceased to be enforceable the complaint must fail. The representative of the complainant however sought to rely on the 1st opposite party s letter dated 27.11.1990 as an acknowledgement to same limitation. That letter contains so acknowledgement but is only a repetition of its stand that the Demand Draft has already been paid through clearing and that the question of refunding the amount did not arise. By no streach of reasoning can this be constrained as an acknowledgement. This is not the only snag. Even this letter is subsequent to the expiry of the period of limitation which came to an end in 1988. It is therefore of no help. The complainant has also not pleased this or any other letter as an acknowledgement. We see no point in admitting the complaint.
WE reject the complaint. Complaint rejected.