View 3942 Cases Against Bank Of Baroda
View 3942 Cases Against Bank Of Baroda
Sangeeta Kalra filed a consumer case on 26 Mar 2015 against Bank of Baroda in the Ludhiana Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/164 and the judgment uploaded on 13 May 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 164 of 16.03.2015
Date of Decision: 26.03.2015
Sangeeta Kalra aged 42 years w/o Sh.Shashi Bhushan Kalra, Proprietor M/s K.G.N. Commodity Services, 99, Street no.1, Old Madhopuri, Ludhiana.
… Complainant
Versus
1. Bank of Baroda, Suraj Plaza-1, Sayaji Ganj, Baroda-39005, through its Chief Managing Director/Managing Director/Chairman.
Corporate Office: Baroda Corporate Centre, Plot no.C-26, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.
2. Chief Managing Director/ Managing Director/ Chairman of Bank of Baroda, Suraj Plaza-1, Sayaji Ganj, Baroda-39005.
3. Bank of Baroda, 70 Feet Road, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
4. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, 70 Feet Road, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana.
… Opposite parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President
Smt.Priti Malhotra, Member.
Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member
Present: Sh.Devinder Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
ORDER
(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)
1. Heard on the point of maintainability. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant being the sole Proprietor of her firm namely M/s K.G.N Commodity Services has opened a current account bearing no.35690200000036 in the branch of OP1 i.e. with the OP3 at Ludhiana for the purpose of smooth running of her business, which she started for her and for the livelihood of herself and for her minor children. After the opening of the above said current account, the complainant started operating the said account and has deposited amount in the said account from time to time and also withdraw the same for her business and personal needs. The business and needs of the children of the complainant totally dependent upon the operation of the said account as she used to deposit her amount of business transactions and earning in the said account and even she has conducted business transactions through said current account. All of a sudden on 3.12.11 the Ops had illegally and malafidely freezed the said current account of the complainant suo motu without any legal and valid cause and reason and without informing and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the complainant and even no notice was ever served upon the complainant before freezing her account. The complainant approached the Ops and requested them to defreeze her account, but the OPs has refused to do so and told the complainant that they have seized the account as per the order of the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana in FIR no.238 of 2011 under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at P.S. Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana against the husband of the complainant.
2. As per the allegations of the complainant, the complainant was maintaining the current account bearing no.35690200000036 with the OPs being a sole Proprietor of her Firm. Further there are allegations of the complainant that all of sudden on 3.12.11, the OPs have illegally and malafidely freezed the said current account of the complainant without any legal and valid cause and reason and without informing and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the complainant. Even no notice was ever served upon the complainant before freezing her account. The complainant has also placed on record copy of the FIR no.238 of 2011 under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered with P.S. Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, in which, the husband of the complainant has shown as accused. Complainant also placed on record copy of the letter dated 22.03.12, which was written by the complainant to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Sunder Nagar Ludhiana regarding the continuing of her account. So, cause of action accrued to the complainant on 3.12.11, when the account was freezed by the Bank of Baroda and further on 22.3.12 when the letter was written to the Bank of Baroda, but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 16.3.15, after the elapse of more than two years and the complainant was required to file the complaint within a period of 2 years from the cause of action as per the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides the period of Limitation Period, which describes as under:-
i)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.
ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied 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:
provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
4. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported as State Bank of India vs. M/s B.S.Agriculture Industries (I)-(2009) CPJ-481, wherein, it was held that the provisions of Section 24-A are peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. That the expression, shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. That the Consumer Fora’s were debarred from entertaining any complaint, which was beyond the period of limitation. Para -8 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer Forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘ shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”
5. From the perusal of the above said provisions, it is clear that the present complaint is not maintainable and is also time barred and the same cannot be admitted for hearing.
6. In view of the above observations, the present complaint is hereby not admitted. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
(Babita) (S.P.Garg) (R.L.Ahuja)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:26.03.2014
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.