(Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President)

(1)               Heard both the sides.  This appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by District Forum, Raigarh in Consumer Complaint No.44/2010 decided on 19/05/2010.   The complaint filed by the complainant/appellant is rejected on the ground of limitation and therefore appeal.

(2)               Though, the appellant has preferred this appeal, there is a delay of 12 days and therefore there is a delay condonation application.  The initial objection raised by the counsel for the respondent is that the delay has been wrongly calculated by the appellant/complainant.  According to the learned counsel for the respondent, there is a delay of 45 days in preferring this appeal.  The learned counsel for the respondent pointed that the free copies were dispatched by the District Forum on 26/05/2010 and to that effect there is an endorsement made by the Registrar of the District Forum.  Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 25/06/2010.  He submitted that in order to cover up the delay artificially, the appellant/complainant has obtained a certified copy on 21/06/2010 and thus filed the appeal.  However, he submitted that the fact that the appellant received the free copy on 26/05/2010 has been suppressed.  On going through the submission and perusal of record, we also find that there is a delay of 45 days in filing appeal and not 12 days as claimed by the appellant.

(3)               For condonation of delay, the appellant submitted that the appellant is NRI and that he has not received the copy of order.  It is further submitted that the power of attorney holder of the appellant was suffering from jaundice.  Hence, he could not file appeal in time.  To support this contention, counsel for the appellant placed on record the certificate issued by Dr.B.K.Dongare, wherein it is stated that from 15/07/2010 to 01/08/2010, Surajuddin Suleman Kheratkar was suffering from jaundice.  However, the appellant has not explained as to why the said power of attorney holder has not filed the appeal after the receipt of certified copy of 26/05/2010 and prior to feel ill on 15/07/2010.  In the result, we find that the explanation is not sufficient to condone the delay of 45 days and therefore we reject the delay condonation application.  However, we do not desire the complainant to be non-suited on this technical ground and therefore we have also heard the matter on merit. 

(4)               The appellant/original complainant being an NRI, hence made following deposits with the respondent:-

(5)               Thus, it will be seen that these deposits are matured long back and it was obligatory for the complainant to renew these deposits, but the complainant till the filing of the complaint never approached the respondent to renew the deposits.  However, the respondent bank on its own renewed the deposits as per the Reserved Bank of India rates.  However, it is to be noted that after liberalization in 1995 rate of interest on deposits have gone town and therefore all these deposits renewed by the bank at lesser rate of interest as was prevailing as per the directions of Reserve Bank of India at the time of renewal of respective fixed deposit.  It is further interesting to be noted that against these deposits the appellant/complainant has taken a loan and pledged these deposits with the bank.  The rate of interest on this loan was 2% above the rate of interest on deposit.  Since, these deposits were not renewed from time to time and since the loan amount was not repaid by the complainant, the amount of loan has become more than the original amount of deposits and its interest and when the bank started to claim amounts, this consumer dispute has been raised. But we find if the complainant/appellant desires to raise a dispute about rate of interest on deposit he should have raised it immediately after first suo-moto renewal.  In fact, the consumer or customer has not turned for a renewal of the fixed deposit, but the respondent herein have renewed the fixed deposit after the maturity dates as per the prevailing rates of the Reserve Bank of India then applicable to the NRI deposits.  Under these circumstances, there is not deficiency in service on the part of respondent in view of these admitted facts.  Apart from that, as we have observed and equally the District Forum has found that the complaint should have been immediately lodged after first renewal in respect of each deposit, when it was found it was adverse in the interest of the complainant.  That period comes some time in 1995.  As against that, the complaint has been filed in 2010 i.e. after a period of 15 years after cause of action has taken place.  In fact, the complainant has slept over his right, and therefore the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.  We confirm the said finding recorded by the District Forum.  We also find that there is no merit on the admitted facts.  Thus, the appeal is rejected on the ground it is time barred and it is equally being rejected since it has no merit.

Pronounced on 30^th June, 2011.