ORDER NO. 9

The instant Misc. Application has been filed by the OP No. 1 challenging the maintainability of the Complaint Case No. CC/694/2016 on the ground that the Complaint Case is barred by limitation, its pecuniary limit being below the pecuniary limit of this Commission and also the case suffers from non-joinder of party and absence of cause of action as well.

The Ld. Advocate for the Misc. Applicant submits that as the maturity-value of the FDR being Rs. 2,16,387/-, round which the Complaint Case revolves, was released on 18.9.2001, so the cause of action ceased to exist on the said date and hence, the case is barred by limitation.

The Ld. Advocate also submits that as the amount involved in the FDR in question is Rs. 2,16,387/-, so the Complaint Case does not come within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

The Ld. Advocate further submits that as the FDR in question was on account of Hemali International represented by its proprietor being Gunvantrai M. Vora, who expired on 18.10.2010, so the Complaint case suffers from non-joinder of proper party.

The Ld. Advocate finally concludes that the aforesaid submission suggests that the Complaint case is not maintainable and hence, the instant Misc. Application should be allowed and the Complaint be dismissed.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant raises vehement objection  to the aforesaid submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Misc. Applicant/OP No. 1 and submits that as the maturity-value of the FDR in question has not yet been credited to the account of the depositor, so the cause of action continues and hence, the case is not barred by limitation.

The Ld. Advocate also submits that as the maturity value of the FDR together with interest accrued thereto for so long a period appears to be Rs. 25,72,412/- as averred at the prayer portion of the Complaint-petition and the compensation claimed being Rs. 3,00,000/- and thus the total value of the case having been more than Rs. 20,00,000/-, so the case is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

The Ld. Advocate further submits that as the Complainant is the wife of the deceased proprietor of Hemali International and the legal heir of the deceased proprietor of Hemali International as well, so the Complainant falls within the definition of ‘Complainant’ as defined u/s 2(b)(v) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Misc. Application deserves dismissal and the case be legally maintainable.

Heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

The Misc. Applicant has not adduced any evidence to prove that maturity-value of the FDR in question has already been credited in the account of the depositor, rather the letter dated 6.10.2001 by the depositor to the Misc. Applicant/OP No. 1, as available on records, exhibits that the depositor did not accept the cheque dated 18.9.2001 related to the maturity-value of the FDR in question and hence, as the maturity-value of the FDR has not been credited in the account of the depositor, so the cause of action is continuing one.

Further, the maturity-value of the FDR together with interest accrued thereon appears to be Rs. 25,72,412/- and the compensation claimed being Rs. 3,00,000/-, the aggregate of which comes to Rs. 28,72,412/-, which falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission as provided u/s 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The aforesaid discussion leads us to conclude that the instant Misc. Application deserves dismissal.

Consequently, the instant Misc. Application is dismissed.

Fix 12.6.2017 for evidence on affidavit by the Complainant.