BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.358-2015

DATED ON THIS THE 27^th May 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of pay `1,70,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. and for compensation and costs.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the opposite party being finance institution invited deposit from the public.  The complainant has deposited a sum of `30,000/- on 04.12.2003 and date of maturity date is 04.12.2004.  Likewise, she has deposited another sum of `40,000/- on 04.12.2003 and maturity date is 04.12.2004.  Likewise, another sum of `30,000/- was deposited on 04.12.2003 and date of maturity is 04.12.2004.  The opposite party has agreed to pay interest at 14% p.a.  The opposite party has paid interest upto May 2010.  Thereafter, no payment was made by the opposite party and the opposite parties office was closed.  Hence, this complaint filed alleging deficiency in service.
3.     In spite of service of notice, opposite parties called absent.  All the opposite parties placed exparte.  Then this matter is posted for evidence of complainant.  During evidence, complainant has filed her affidavit evidence.  Further evidence closed. 
4.     After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing this complaint?
2. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Do not survive for consideration.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- Along with complaint, the complainant has filed an application under section 24(A) of C.P.Act for condoning the delay in filing the complaint.  This application is accompanied with affidavit of the complainant to the effect that she has filed this complaint claiming a sum of `1,70,000/- with interest at 18% p.a.  She has invested the amount, whereas the opposite party has played fraud and unfair trade practice and fail to pay the principal or interest amount.  The complainant came to know that office of the opposite party closed during June 2012 subsequently in June 2013 when the news came up in local newspaper, she is widow only, no information about opposite party.  Thereby, she was unable to complaint filed well in time.  The complainant has sought for allowing this I.A. and condone the delay in filing the complaint.  By plain reading of complaint, it is clear that in respect of deposit No.1, date of deposit is 04.12.2003, which was matured on 04.12.2004.  Likewise, in respect of 2^nd deposit also, same date is given. In respect of 3^rd deposit, the complainant has shown the same dates and the documents and Xerox copy of the F.D. receipts also shown same dates of deposits and maturity.  By plain reading of the complaint, it is clear that the complainant ought to have filed the complaint on or before 04.12.2006 i.e. well within the 2 years from the date of maturity of the F.D. receipts and further it is necessary to note the time again, the complainant pleaded and given evidence to the effect that the opposite party has paid interest till May 2010.  But, there are no endorsement on the F.D. receipts for having paid the interest on these deposits.  Thereby, the version of complainant that opposite party has paid interest upto May 2010 is unbelievable.  Further, when opposite party failed to make payment either towards the principal or interest, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint well within 2 years from 04.12.2006 or from May 2010.  On the other hand, she has come up with an explanation stating that office was closed in June 2012, she came to know this only in 2013 and there are no other members in the family to get the information about the opposite party as she is widow such an explanation cannot be accepted for inordinate delay of almost more than 10 years for filing this complaint.  Thereby, reasons assigned by the complainant are not sufficient cause for not filing the complaint well within the time prescribed under section 24(A) of C.P.Act.  Thereby, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
8.    Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, complaint is barred by limitation, thereby there is no need to discuss point No.2. As such, point no.2 does not survive for consideration.
9.   Point No.3:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, I.A.No.1 filed by the complainant under section 24(A) of C.P.Act is liable to be dismissed, in result, complaint is also to be dismissed. Hence, the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. I.A.No.1 filed by complainant under section 24(A) of C.P.Act is dismissed. In result, complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 27^th May 2016)