26^th   day of September2012

                                  CC.454/12 filed on 13/9/2012

Complainant     :   Suma Sunil.Ponnarassery House, P.O.Thamarayoor,

                             (Via)Kottapadi, Thrissur.

                             (By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)

Respondent     :     Amarthya Chities & Loans Pvt.Ltd., rep. by Managing

                             Director, Regd.Office Room No.T10, 3^rd floor, Adam

                             Bazar, Thrissur.

                                                 ORDER

By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President 

            Heard on admission.

            2.The complaint is filed to get back the  kuri amount from the respondents.  It is the case that the complainant was a subscriber of chitty No.14 conducted by respondents, which was started on 14/12/98.  The instalment amount of the said chitty was Rs.12,000/-.  The complainant had remitted  for 13 instalments.  It is the allegation that  against law the respondents conducted the kuri in Thrissur  instead of Faridabad.   When the complainant complained  about this illegal act the respondents told not to pay the kuri amount.  Now the complaint is filed to get back the kuri amount from the respondents.  It can be seen that the claim of complainant is barred by limitation.  If the complainant has any indifference in the conducting of kuri in Thrissur it should be challenged at the earliest and should take legal action at that time.  There is no document produced to show the bonafide of petitioner.  Now the claim of complainant is barred by limitation.  It is more than 10 years  lapsed from the payment of last kuri instalment by the petitioner.  So the complaint cannot admit because it is barred under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Forum shall not admit the complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date from which the cause  of action has arisen.  The cause of action has arisen when the complainant stopped the payment of kuri and  complained about the alleged illegal act committed by respondents.  The complaint is only experimental and is not admissible.  Hence rejected as barred by limitation.

          Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26^th day  of September 2012.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   Padmini Sudheesh, President

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   M.S.Sasidharan, Member

                             Appendix

                                 Nil

                                                                             Id/-

                                                                      President