Delhi

StateCommission

A/176/2019

RAMESH KUMAR AJMANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :02.04.2019

Date of Decision :09.04.2019

FIRST APPEAL NO.176/2019

In the matter of:

 

                                        

Ramesh Kumar Ajmani

S/o. Late Shri Boota Ram Ajmani,

R/o. K-55 Pratap Nagar,

•  

 

Versus

 

Central Bank of India,

1763 Laxmi Narain Street,

Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj,

New Delhi-110055.……..Respondent

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present appeal at the stage of admission is based on the allegations that respondent/ OP bank did not return the special FD of Rs.25,000/- deposited by him on 09.08.92 at the time of taking locker. The locker  was surrendered on 20.10.10. The OP could not trace the FD or the locker folder containing the indemnity bond. Complainant filed RTI on 18.08.11 to which a reply was received on 25.04.11 stating that statement of account for the period 09.08.92 to 28.04.03 was not available. Regarding indemnity bond and stamp paper it was replied that no locker folder was available.  In appeal CIC ordered OP to provide requisite information, on affidavit which was given on 18.02.13. It was stated that locker folder was not available as the  same was damaged due to termite. No FIR was lodged of destruction of record due to termite . Hence the appellant wanted OP to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest and cost of litigation.
2. The OP respondent pleaded that complaint was barred by limitation. Initially complaint was allowed vide order dated 18.01.16 directing appellant to pay interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 09.08.92, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. In appeal no.135/16, the said order was set aside on 12.09.17 and matter was remanded back for deciding afresh after taking evidence from both sides.
3. The District Forum found that cause of action arose on 24.04.11 when complainant was told that no locker folder was available. Complaint filed  on 02.09.15 is barred by limitation. I endorse the said finding. In R.P. No.26/12 titled as Sabastian MD vs. M.J. Deva Das decided on 13.07.12 NC held that representations do not extend limitation. Similar view was taken in OP 55/01 tilted as Hansa Wire Product Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance decided on 18.11.11.
4. The appellant relied upon notification dated 17.04.17 issued by RBI directing bank not to insist on  FD for payment of rent of locker, from existing locker holders on the basis of circular issued in the year 2007. The District Forum found that the same was not applicable to locker hired in 1992.The circular could not have retrospective effect.
5. On merits the District Forum found that appellant failed to give particulars of FD. So the complaint was dismissed.
6. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)