Shriram Chits Tamilnadu Private Ltd vs D. Murugesan

R.K. Agrawal, J

The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 14-07-2014 passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai Bench (hereinafter referred to as, 'the State Commission') whereby the Complaint filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed on the ground of delay of 730 days has not been satisfactorily explained.

We have heard Mr. K. V. Ananthakrishnan, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and have perused the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The Learned Counsel submitted that in the affidavit filed seeking condonation of delay, the Appellant had given sufficient reasons to show as to why the Appellant could not prefer the Complaint within the time provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). A perusal of the paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 of the affidavit which have been reproduced below for ready reference establishes the fact that the Appellant was pursuing taking of steps for redressal of his grievances and as the Opposite Party is an advocate who had committed breach of trust, more caution was required which it took and, therefore, the delay of 730 days in approaching the State Commission by filing the Complaint ought to have been condoned.

"4. As the Opposite Party happens to be an advocate/the petitioner/complainant had dealt with the issue with more caution. Before making a complaint, it took one years time, for the complainant to collect all particulars relating to the withdrawal and misappropriation done by the respondent/opposite party. He committed breach of trust. The Complainant issued a notice dated 04.11.2011 to the opposite party and the O.P. sent a reply dated 4.1.2012 raising false and frivolous defence. The petitioner/complainant in order to avoid litigation used alternate remedy to settle the issues amicably. Despite their best efforts, the petitioner/complainant, could not settle the issue.

The complainant is a consumer and the opposite party has committed breach of trust, misappropriated the money during the period 2007 to 2009. The opposite party received fees for the professional services rendered. These misdeed of commission, omission and misappropriation are deficiency of service came to light of the complainant only during the period 2011. It took several months for the complainant to trace out the details before taking appropriate steps and accusing the opposite party. Thereafter, since the opposite party happened to be an Advocate, in order to avoid confrontation, complainant has been negotiating with the opposite party through several sources including the Bar Association till the middle of 2013. Left with no other alternative and after exhausting all the remedies the petitioner is approaching the Hon'ble State Consumer Commission for redressal. It is pertinent to point out that most of the Advocates who know the opposite party avoided to discuss the issue against their erring colleague, the opposite party.

As per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint ought to have been filed within two years from the date of cause of action arose for filing the complaint. The misappropriation took place during 2009 came to the knowledge of the complainant during 2011. As submitted earlier, it took one year to trace out the details. The cause of action is calculated from 2009. The complaint ought to have been filed by 2011. The negotiation went for one year for amicable settlement. These are all the reasonable and sufficient causes which prevented the complainant from approaching this Hon'ble Commission last for filing a complaint within two years from Sept.2009 being the last dates of misappropriation.

The delay has occasioned due to the reasons set out above. Unless the delay in filing the Complaint is condoned and the same is taken on file, the Complainant will put to serious loss and hardship. The erring person should not be allowed to escape the clutches of law on the ground of limitation after committing illegality and misappropriation of money. The opposite party is bound to answer and be punished for his illegal deeds. The Consumer Protection Act, 24A prescribes two years as the period of limitation. On sufficient cause being shown the delay be condoned.

The special provision fixing limitation excludes limitation Act with a power to condone the delay. In this connection, the Complainant is advised to submit that for recovery of the amount from the Trustee who was entrusted with the money, is a continuing cause of action. Hence, no period is prescribed under the limitation Act. The continuing breach of trust is a continuing cause of action. The beneficiaries is entitled to bring up the case against the trustee at any time. Hence, the complaint is in time, since filed within two years from the date of knowledge and from the date of notice dated 04-11-2011. This may be taken into consideration while deciding the issue of condoning the delay in filing the above complaint before the Hon'ble Commission."

The reasons given by the Appellant are satisfactory and the explanation appears to be bona fide. The State Commission, in our considered opinion, ought to have condoned the delay of 730 days in filing the Complaint and the Complaint should have been decided on merits.

We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission and restore the Complaint on the file of the State Commission and request the State Commission to decide the said Complaint expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within six months from the date a copy of this order is filed before the State Commission.

The Appeal succeeds and is allowed.