BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 315 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 09.11.2015.
Date of Order: 12.03.2019.
Radhey Shyam son of Shri Ami Lal, Ex-cashier, The Bhiwani Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Bhiwani, at present resident of Kirti Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
…..Complainant.
Versus
C. E. O., The Bhiwani Central Co-operative Bank Limited, HUDA building, near HUDA Park, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Party
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Ravinder Paposa, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he has taken a house loan of Rs.99,000/- from the OP Bank and at that time the complainant was working as cashier in the OP Bank. It is alleged that at the time of taking loan, the complainant has deposited the original documents his property with the Bank and the OP Bank has pledged the original documents. It is further alleged that the complainant has paid the last installment of Rs.1,15,449/- on 3.5.2012 and the receipt of the same was issued by the OP Bank. It is further alleged that the complainant after clearing the loan account has requested the OP Bank many time to return the original documents taken at the time of giving house loan, but to no effect. It is further alleged that the complainant has got served a legal notice dated 28.5.2015 to the OP Bank, but the OP Bank has not returned the original sale deed and also not issued the No Dues Certificate. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, OP appeared and filed the contested written statement alleging therein that the house in dispute stands attached by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bhiwani exercising the powers of Registrar Co-operative Societies, Haryana under the provision of Co-operative Societies Act, Section 111 in the proceedings of arbitration/dispute of the embezzled amount of Rs.7,05,000/- cash shortage committed by the complainant when he was working on the seat of cashier in the head office branch of the Bank and admitted this embezzlement by way of application dated 12.3.2014 and failed to deposit the amount along with interest and cost till today and thus the attachment cannot be revoked and lifted or set aside in the proceedings before the Consumer Forum. It is further alleged that the complainant is still in litigation against the OP on the embezzled amount committed by him and all the courts ARCS/DRCS/RCS/FC have decided against him and he has filed the CWP No.17955/2012 regarding amount of Rs. 7,05,000/- which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court on 16.5.2016, moreover the complainant stands convicted and sentenced against the embezzlement of Rs.7,05,000/-, as such the proceedings cannot be taken at both places i.e. Consumer Forum and High Court, as such the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant to prove his case placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Mark-A and the documents Annexure C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed on record documents Annexure R1 to R12 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
6. The plea taken by the OP is that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being time barred, as the alleged the complainant has cleared loan account on 3.5.2012, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 9.11.2015, so it is hopelessly time barred. In our view, the plea taken by the OP has substance, because the cause of action has arisen to the complainant on 3.12.2012 i.e. the date of clearing loan account, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 9.11.2015 i.e. after two years and eleven months from the date of incident, whereas the complaint could be filed within two years from the date when the cause of action has arisen, as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 24-A of the C. P. Act, which is reproduced as under: -
“24-A. 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.
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”.
No such application for condonation of delay has been moved nor request was made. So in view of the provisions laid down above, the complaint is hopelessly time barred, as mentioned above.
7. Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 12.03.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
