(Delivered on 02/05/2016 )

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the order dated 13/07/2005 passed in consumer complaint No. 315/2004 by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur,  by which  the complaint has been dismissed as time barred.

2.         The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under.

             The opposite party (for short O.P.) is a bank. The complainant opened saving bank account No. 1486 with the O.P. by depositing with it Rs.10/- on 13/06/1985. He also kept in fixed deposit with that bank Rs.3,000/- on 24/02/1993, Rs. 4000/-  on 10/09/1996 and Rs. 3000/- on 05/08/1991, for  a fixed period of 6 years. He obtained loan Rs.4000/- as against fixed deposit of Rs.3000/-. He alleged that O.P. did not return him the aforesaid amount after period of maturity. He thus claimed total Rs.12,000/- from O.P.  towards  all fixed deposit.

            The O.P. alleged that complainant purchased 200 shares under stock investment scheme through the O.P. It is also alleged by the O.P. that   the complainant obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- as against the share.  It is also alleged by the O.P. as deposit of Rs.3000/- was withdrawn by the complainant on 24/02/1994 after a period of one year of deposit.  It is alleged by the O.P.  that at the time of  maturity of  fixed deposit of Rs.4000/-, it was found that  Rs.4200.85  are outstanding  against  the loan amount of Rs.4000/- obtained by the complainant and said amount was deducted from  the maturity amount of Rs.6000/- and balance amount Rs.1862.15 was paid to the complainant   on 06/01/1997. It is also alleged by the O.P. that another fixed deposit of Rs.4000/- was matured on 06/07/2002 and after the period of maturity Rs.8084.30 have been deposited in the saving bank account of complainant. It also alleged  that as  against  the another fixed deposit  of Rs.3000/- and as against  the other  two fixed deposit of Rs.7000/- and Rs. 2000/- of the complainant,  the complaint had purchased 200 shares under stock  investment scheme from the  O.P. and accordingly certificate was issued to him. Thus, the shares were issued on 04/10/1994. The O.P. thus filing reply/written version resisted the complaint before the Forum.

3.         The Forum after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record found that the cause of action arose lastly on 08/06/2002 and complaint was filed after a period of limitation from that date and therefore it is barred by limitation.  The Forum therefore dismissed the complaint.

4.         This appeal is filed by the complainant against that order. The appellant/complainant has filed his hand written notes of argument on 27/07/2015. The learned advocate of the respondent/O.P. also filed his written notes of argument and relied on the same. The appellant is not present for hearing today. The respondent’s advocate is present for hearing today.

5.         The appellant in his written notes of argument submitted in brief  that  fixed deposit receipts (  FDR) in original  have been submitted  as against the  shares  and those FDRs are of Rs. 7000/- dated 17/09/1991, Rs.2000/- dated 02/10/1995 and Rs. 3000/- dated 22/02/1989 i.e. for total Rs.12000/-. However, his further written notes of argument is not clear. But an inference can be drawn from it that he received Rs. 3000/- back on in 1999 and  O.P credited Rs. 3000/-  & again Rs. 3000/- to his bank account.

6.         The learned advocate of the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that all the papers of account, fixed deposits and loan as produced before the Forum by the O.P. of which copies are filed by the appellant show that nothing  of the complaint is due from the O.P.  as specified by the O.P. in its written version filed  before the Forum  in detail. He further submitted that the Forum has rightly held that the complaint is barred by limitation. He therefore requested that appeal may be dismissed.

7.         As per complaint, the complainant deposited Rs.7000/-, Rs.2000/-  and Rs.3000/- respectively on 17/09/1991, 02/10/1995 and 22/02/1989 and  he had purchased some equity shares through the O.P. bank and obtained  some amount  of loan from the O.P. as against the fixed deposits.  The complaint is not clear as to what amount of the complainant is actually due from the O.P. after adjustment of loan amount and shares. The prayer clause of the complaint is also very vague.  As per prayer clause of the complaint, the deficiencies specified in the para No. A to E of the complaint are required to be removed by the O.P. and direction may be given to remove the  said deficiencies    & to  make good of the loss sustained by the complainant and to return him the original FDRs and to pay him compensation of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental harassment.

8.         As against this the reply of the written version is very clear in which all the details are given as to how the accounts of the complainant have been settled by the O.P.  Moreover, several documents of accounts as  mentioned by the O.P. are produced in support of the evidence of the O.P. that nothing of the complainant is due from the O.P.

9.         The complainant has not produced any document to support his case about the loss if any sustained by him in settlement of his account by the O.P.  Moreover, the Forum has rightly held that the complaint is barred by limitation since it is not filed within two years period of limitation from the last date of maturity of FDR. The O.P. had already closed the account of the complainant long  before two years  preceding the complaint. We therefore find no merit in the appeal & it deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

i.          The appeal is dismissed.

ii.          No order as to cost in appeal

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.