By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member:
The complainant’s case is as follows: the complainant had joined a kuri having Sl. No.188 in the respondent firm on 9.10.99. The said kuri had 60 instalments with Rs.1000/- for each instalment. He paid all the kuri instalments and as per the kuri he is entitled to get Rs.50,000/-. But even after the kuri termination the respondents did not return the kuri amount. So the act of the respondents shows deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The respondents remained exparte.
3. To prove the case of the complainant, he filed affidavit and produced Exts. P1 and P2 documents.
4. According to the complainant, he paid the entire kuri instalments towards the kuri conducted by the respondents. The said kuri had 60 instalments and he is entitled to get Rs.50,000/-. The respondents failed to return the kuri amount even after the termination of the kuri.
5. There is no evidence to the contrary.
6. But as per Ext. p1 the complainant had joined the kuri on 9.10.99 and it was terminated on 9.9.04. Then the complaint ought to have filed within 2 years from the kuri termination. As per Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection the complaint should have filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The present complaint is filed in the year 2008. Sending of lawyer notice dtd. 25.8.08 i.e. after 4 years from the date of cause action will not arise a fresh cause of action. So the complaint is strictly barred by limitation. There is delay of 4 years and no attempt has been made to explain and condone the delay. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of September 2011.
