Per Hon’ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Member :

          This appeal taken an exception to the order dated 26.3.2008 passed in CC No. 178/2007 Dr. Vijay Pandurang Thorat and Others v/s the President, Shri Mahavir Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit and Others by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (Forum in short).

          The consumer complaint which relates to the alleged deficiency in service in respect of the Fixed Deposits, it is dismissed by the impugned order and failing aggrieved thereby, the original Complainants preferred this appeal.

          It is a grievance of the Appellants (hereinafter referred as Complainants) that they had kept deposits with Shri Mahavir Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit (hereinafter referred as Pathsanstha) on various dates of various amounts.  On 30.9.2000, the Complainant No.1 Dr. Vijay P. Thorat went to Pathsanstha to renew those deposits.  The Manager, attending him asked to come on next day to get duly renewed deposit receipts.  However, from the next date, the said Manager was not found in the Bank and the Complainant also did not receive the renewed Fixed Deposit receipts.  Notice sent to get the deposit receipts proved futile and therefore, the consumer complaint was filed on 25.6.2007.

          The Opponents denied  the complaint in to to.  According to them, Complainant already received the amounts of the respective deposits kept with it..  However, mis-using the counter-foils of the deposits which remained with them, they have filed this false complaint.

          They also raised objection to the limitation.

          Heard both the sides.  Perused the record.

          In the instant case, considering the written averments made in the complaint, it could be seen that the real dispute pertains to as to whether the Complainants have kept the various deposits, as alleged, and of which they failed to get the renewed deposit receipts from the Pathsanstha.  According to the Complainants themselves, Complainant No. 1 Dr. Vijay P. Thorat had been to the Pathsanstha on 30.9.2000.  The Manager attended  him (name of the Manager is not mentioned) but on the following dates, said Manager was not found and from the Pathsanstha the Complainant did not get their renewed deposit receipts.  Thus looking to the main grievance, it is for the Complainants to establish that they have really kept such deposits and for which they failed to get the renewed deposit receipts.  The Complainants failed to discharge such burden which lies on them.

          Apart from this, considering the real nature of dispute, it pertains to the alleged deficiency in service by not handing over the renewed deposit receipts vis-à-vis not acknowledging the deposits and paying the interest thereon, their refund etc.  Thus, the issue as mentioned earlier, to not handing over renewed deposit receipts which is synonymous to acknowledge by the Pathsanstha of keeping such deposits with it.  Therefore, once the Pathsanstha failed to issue the renewed deposit receipts for the alleged deficiency in service, the cause of action would arise on 30.9.2000.  Hence, the consumer complaint filed on 25.6.2007 is, certainly barred by limitation in view of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The consumer complaint filed without any delay condonation  application is, therefore, cannot be entertained.  The Complainants made a wrong statement in the complaint as to the limitation which cannot be accepted in the light of discussion held above.  Thus, we find that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation and the conclusion on the issue reach by the Forum is erroneous.

          As earlier pointed out particularly in the background of the case pleaded by the Opponents, it is revealed that no such deposits were actually kept. Basically, it is for the Complainants to establish their case of keeping such deposits and which they failed to establish.  Therefore, no deficiency in service can be alleged against the Pathsanstha much less against the Opponents.  The Pathsanstha is not a party to the consumer complaint.  It is the Chairman or Directors or the Manager i.e. officers/officials of Pathsanstha and which are separate entities vis-à-vis distinct juridical person as defined under the act and not the Pathsanstha itself..  Nothing has been alleged against these respondents to fasten any individual or personal liability on them.

          Considering all these aspects, we find no reason to take a view other than what has been taken by the Forum dismissing the consumer complaint.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :

O R D E R

          The appeal stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.

Pronounced dated 9th September 2010.