For the appellant:              None appeared

For the respondents:           Mr. K.K. Bhatra, Advocate

Date of Hearing:                 02-09-2019

Date of Judgment:             10-09-2019

J U D G M E N T

                                                            BY DR. (MRS.) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH, PRESIDENT,

          The judgment and order dated 13-6-2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum in short), Cachar, in Con. Case No. 45 of 2014, has been challenged before this Commission in the instant appeal.

2.       The case of the appellant is that having  a Saving Bank Account in Allahabad Bank, Jalalpur Branch, Cachar, she deposited cash amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand) only vide deposit slip to the Allahabad Bank on 28-05-2009. The said amount was not credited in her account, maintained by the respondent bank. No entry was also made in her Saving Pass Book. On 23-04-2014, the appellant, for the first time, lodged a complaint to the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, she approached the District Forum, Cachar.

3.       The respondents contested the complaint by filing written statement disputing inter-alia, the jurisdiction of the District Forum and denying the claim of the appellant as frivolous and vexatious. At the District Forum, both parties filed their respective evidence on affidavit. However, none of the parties asked the Forum to call for the witnesses for cross-examination. On conclusion of trial, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant on contest.

4.       Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Cachar, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

5.       No argument has been placed on behalf of the appellant as the appellant remained unrepresented on the dates fixed for hearing.

6.       Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent bank and also perused the materials on record.

7.       That the appellant is a Saving Bank Account holder in Allahabad Bank, Jalalpur Branch, Cachar, is not disputed. The contention of the appellant is that she deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- on 28-05-2009 by deposit slip. The appellant/complainant during the evidence in affidavit, failed to prove that she tendered Rs. 2,50,000/- to the cashier or any other employee of the bank. Admittedly, the said amount was not credited in her Bank Account. The copy of the counterfoil of the deposit slip exhibited during the trial before the District Forum, was not signed by the appellant/complainant or any depositor. There was no date in the counterfoil of the deposit slip. The respondent/opposite party had questioned the genuineness of the counterfoil of the deposit slip and alleged that it was a fake document and not issued by any authorised bank official.

8.       We have noticed that as per appellant, she deposited Rs. 2,50,000/-on 25-05-2009. From Exhibit-2, copy of Pass Book (proved in original), it appears that there was transaction in the bank till 15-10-2014. Therefore, it is unbelievable that the appellant was not aware of the fact that the amount was not credited in her account. No complaint was lodged by the appellant before 23-04-2014.

9.       The complaint before the Forum below was lodged only on 17-09-2014. Thus, from 28-05-2009 to 17-09-2014, i.e. after more than five years, a complaint was filed before the District Forum and that too, without any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, speaks as under;

          “Limitation Period-(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1),if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.”

10.     No such application for condonation of delay in terms of Section 24-A of the Act was filed by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum.

11.     Considering all aspects legal, as well as factual, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum, needs no interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of without any cost.

12.     Send back the original record along with a copy of this judgment to the District Forum.