| Complaint Case No. CC/376/2021 | | ( Date of Filing : 07 Oct 2021 ) |
| | | | 1. Shiv Shanker Khemka | | 15, Chittaranjan Avenue,4th Floor, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-700072. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Citi Bank N.A | | Regd. office Citi India First International Financial Centre,plot nos C-54 and C-55,G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra East,Mumbai-400051. | | 2. Teh Chief Executive Officer Citi Bank N.A | | Regd. office Citi India First International Financial Centre,plot nos C-54 and C-55,G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra East,Mumbai-400051. | | 3. The Managing Director, Head of Markets and Securities Services, Citi Bank N.A | | Regd. office Citi India First International Financial Centre,plot nos C-54 and C-55,G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra East,Mumbai-400051. | | 4. The Manager, Citi Bank,N.A, Kolkata Branch | | Kanak Building,41, Chowringhee Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071. | | 5. The Nodal Officer, Citi Bank N.A, Kolkata Branch | | Kanak Building,41,Chowringhee Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700071. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Order No. 02 Dated- 18.11.2021 The case is taken up for admission hearing. Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. He files an application U/s 34 (2) (b) of the CP Act, 2019 supported by an affidavit praying for permission to proceed the case against the OPs 1 to 3 who are carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this commission on the ground stated therein. Let the application be registered as MA 501/2021. Perused the petition of the complaint coupled with documents annexed thereto. Considered. The cause of action of the instant consumer case arose on 14.07.1999 when the OP/Citi Bank issued a letter addressed to the complainant with regard to collection of securities. Therefore, the consumer complaint should be filed within 13.07.2001. On bare of perusal of the record, it appears to us that the instant case is filed on 07.10.2021 beyond the limitation period as prescribed U/s 69 of the CP Act, 2019. There is no application for condonation of delay. It is settled proposition of law that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the complainant has to set out the case showing sufficient reason for not being avail to come the Commission within the stipulated period of limitation. The Hon’be Supreme Court has held that party who has not acted deligently or remain inactive is not entitled for condonation of delay. Complainant is required to approach this commission within 02 years from 14.07.1999. The provisions of section 69 (2) CP Act, 2019 being mandatory and rather peremptory in nature, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint after expiry of prescribed period of limitation, unless the complainant file an appropriate application under sub section (2) of the said section and satisfies that he has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation within 02 years from which the cause of action has arisen. The complainant did not choose to file any application under sub section (2) of section 69 seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is barred U/s 69 of the CP Act, 2019. Under the above discussion, we are not inclined to admit the complaint and complaint is rejected. In view of rejection of consumer complaint, the Miscellaneous Application is not tenable in law and rejected. Thus, MA being No. 501/2021 is disposed off. | |
