Delhi

North

RBT/CC/142/2022

H.L. MEHTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/142/2022

 

In the matter of

 

H.L. Mehta

55/B5, Sector-8,

Rohini, Delhi -110085                                                               ...Complainant

vs

Central Bank of India

Madhuban Chowk

DDA Complex, Delhi-110085                                        ...Opposite party No.1

 

Central Bank of India

Branch, Vikas Sadan,

New Delhi-110023                                                                  ...Opposite party No.2

 

Delhi Development Authority

Through Asstt. Director (LAB)

D-Block, 3^rd Floor,

Vikas Sadan, Delhi-110023                                            ...Opposite party No.3

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER
03/01/2023

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

The present complaint has been received by way of transfer vide order No.F.1/SCDRC/Admn./Transfer/2022/330 dated 16/04/2022 of Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, where the matter was transferred from DCDRC-V (North West) to this Commission. 

This complaint has been filed by Sh. H.L. Mehta, the complainant against Central Bank, Madhuban Chowk as OP-1 ; Central Bank Branch, Vikas Sadan as OP-2 and DDA, through  Assistant Director as OP-3, with allegation of deficiency in service. 

Briefly stated, the facts of the present complaint are that on 19/04/2015, the complainant filed an application for conversion of his flat from lease hold to freehold along with pay order No.246032 dated 18/04/2015 for Rs.58,790/-under a camp held by OP-3.

After that, in the month of May 2015, a camp was organised by OP-3 for distribution of conveyance deed, but the complainant did not get the same. Upon enquiry, vide letter No.139/198/85/LAB(H)SFSSRO-II dated 22/05/2015,  the complainant was informed that since, the pay order amount was not deposited by the complainant, therefore, his application was not processed.  The complainant got a letter issued by Central Bank, Rohini  (OP-1) as per which the amount mentioned above had been transferred to Central Bank,Vikas Sadan (OP-2) on 13/05/2015  and the OP-2 had  credited the same on 23/05/2015.  The complainant has alleged that in a normal case the said transfer should have taken 24 hours, but due to the negligence of OP-1 it took one month.

The complainant has stated that being a senior citizen he has suffered a lot of harassment and inconvenience, thus claiming a nominal compensation of Rs, 50,000/- each from OP-1; from OP-2 on account of using the amount for 10 days and on account of wilful negligence and deficiency and failure on part of OP-3, as they had received the copy of pay order along with application, along with Rs.15,000/- for litigation charges.

The complainant has annexed the counterfoil of the application for conversion along with challan, letter dated 22/05/2015 issued by OP-3, letter dated 27/05/2015 issued by Central Bank, Rohini (OP-1) and notice dated 25/04/2017, with the complaint. 

Notice of the present complaint was served to all the OPs.

Written statement was filed on behalf of OP- 1 & OP-2 where they have taken the preliminary objections that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action first arose in 2015 but the complaint was filed after three years. 

It was submitted that there was no deficiency and negligence on part of OP-1 and OP-2, as the pay order was credited by OP-1 to the account No.3451049225 on 23/04/2015 being maintained by OP-3. Thus there was no delay in crediting the amount.  It was submitted that since OP-1 had received a large number of pay orders and since, OP-3 maintains multiple account and one of them being with OP-2, the amount was transferred to OP-2.  It was admitted that OP-2 had transferred the pay order to the account of OP-3 on 23/05/2015.

It was also submitted that the minimum time of transfer in a normal case is 24 hours but it is not absolute rule, therefore a delay caused due to purely procedural in nature could not be a deficiency in service. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied with the prayer for dismissal of the complaint.

Statement of account for period 18/04/2015 to 24/04/2015 has been annexed with the reply. 

Written statement has also been filed on behalf of the OP-3, where they have taken several preliminary objections such as complainant had failed to serve the statutory legal notice as required under Section 53B of the DD Act, 1957; complaint was false and incorrect; no cause of action was there to file the present complaint, the Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the complaint was barred by limitation.

          It was submitted that the complainant was allotted a Cat.II SFS flat No.55, IInd  floor, Pocket-5, Sector-8, Rohini under Self Financing Scheme for which the possession was handed over on 05/09/1989.  The complainant had applied for the conversion of the flat from lease hold to freehold vide application No.26526 on 19/04/2015.  The application of the complainant was referred to accounts wing for verification of payment, vide report dated 20/05/2015 it was informed that an entry of Rs.58,790/- with respect to conversion charges was not found in DDA records, AD(LAB)H.  A letter dated 22/05/2015 was issued to the complainant to attend the office along with original challan for the payment as well as NOC for electricity and water connection.  On 26/05/2015, the file was again sent to account wing for verification of conversion challan No.104837462 dated 19/04/2015 for Rs.58,790/-.  It was verified by the accounts department that dues of Rs.1,207/- were recoverable from the complainant on account of ground rent and surcharge.  It was further submitted that as the complainant had admitted that the amount was credited to DDA’s account on 23/05/2015 and upon approval of the competent authority conveyance deed was issued on 14/07/2015, subject to the verification of the documents including the stamping from the office of Collector of Stamp payment of dues and fulfilment of other formalities before execution of the conveyance deed. On 18/08/2015, the complainant submitted the conveyance paper after which the conveyance deed was executed on 31/08/2015.

Attested true copy of the possession letter dated 05/09/1989 has been annexed as Annexure A; attested true copy of application No.26526 dated 19/04/2015 as Annexure B (colly);  attested true copy of a letter written to H. L. Mehta from the office of Assistant Director, LAB(H) dated 22/05/2015 as Annexure C; attested true copy of Challan No.104837462 for Rs. 58,790/- deposited dated 19/04/2015 as Annexure D; attested true copy of public hearing given to complainant on 22/05/2015 and 26/05/2015 as Annexure E; attested true copy of letter dated 26/05/2015 from H. L.Mehta to Commissioner Housing as Annexure F, attested true copy of letter dated 18/08/2015 to Assistant Direcor as Annexure G and attested true copy of Conveyance Deed executed on 31/08/2015 as Annexure H (colly).

A joint Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 & OP-2 and OP-3 was filed by the complainant. It was submitted that notice was sent to all the OPs on 23/04/2017, which was received and responded by OP-1 on 29/04/2017.  Therefore, there was no delay, as the complaint was within 03 years from the last cause of action by OP-1, which was on 29/04/2017 and Assistant Director on 22/05/2017. It was further submitted that the cause of action arose on 22/05/2015 when the Assistant Director wrote a letter stating that the amount was not traceable. It was stated that there was no authority letter from the V.C., therefore, the written statement of OP-3 should not be taken on record.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have been reiterated.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant; where the contents of the complaint have been reiterated.

 Sh. J.S. Negi, DD, (SFS) LAB(H), was examined on behalf of OP-3, who has repeated the contents of their written statement on oath and have got exhibited copy of possession letter dated 05/09/1989 as Ex.RW-3/1; copy of application dated 19/04/2015 as Ex.RW-3/2; letter written to complainant 22/05/2015 as Ex.RW-3/3;  copy of Challan No.104837462 for Rs. 58,790/- dated 19/04/2015 as Ex.RW-3/4;  copy of public hearing given to the complainant on 22/05/2015 and 26/05/2015 as Ex.RW-3/5; copy of letter dated 26/05/2015 from the complainant to Commissioner (Houses) as Ex.RW-3/6. 

They have also got exhibited the copy of letter dated 18/08/2015 and conveyance Deed executed on 31/08/2015 as Ex.RW-3/7 and Ex.RW-3/8.

          No evidence was filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2 despite opportunity. 

We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 and Ld. Counsel for OP-3. We have also perused the material placed on record.  The first and foremost question to be decided is whether the present complaint has been filed within a period of limitation prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

“24A 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”

As per letter dated 23/04/2017, written by the complainant to OP-1 to OP-3, the cause action for the first time arose, when the complainant vide letter No.139/198/85/LAB(H)SFS SRO-II dated 22/05/2015 ,was informed  that since he had not deposited the pay order for conversion charges, his application was not processed.  Therefore, the period of limitation to file the present complaint started to run from 22/05/2015, so the complaint could have been filed on/before 22/05/2017.  In the instant case, date of institution is 24/03/2018 with the delay of 306 days.  The complainant in his rejoinder has stated the period of limitation to be three years and has also stated that the complaint has been filed within one year of service of notice to OPs. It is settled principle of that ignorance of law is no excuse.

          It is seen that the complainant got the conveyance deed on 31/08/2015, and the notice was issued vide letter dated 23/04/2017 after a period of 01 year 07 months and 26 days.  No other communication/representation has been placed by the complainant to show that he had approached OPs for the redressal of his grievance. It will not be out of place to say that the letter dated 24/03/2017 was sent with the intention of extension of limitation period. 

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of  State of Tripura & Ors.  vs Rabindra Chakraborty & Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 460]  held  that ; 

“10. In our opinion the suit was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, where there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended.  The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation.  A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the dates on which the last representation is decided.....”

Similarly the Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III(2006) CPJ 414 NC also observed that no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.

Even Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in CC No.155/2010, titled as “Sh.Gian Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority” (D.O.D.16/08/2021) held that:

20. Thus, we are of considered view that the complainant has not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of his case which has resulted in filing the present complaint beyond the period of two years as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is clear that the negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are imputable to the Complainant; therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for any condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application for Condonation of Delay is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint shall also stand dismissed

          In the instant case no application has been filed by the Complainant to explain any sufficient cause for delay of 307 days in filing this complaint within the prescribed period of limitation.

Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be uploaded on the website also.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                      (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

Member                                             President