Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/396

T.R.Chandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepam Kuries & Loans Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K.K.Aneeshkumar

27 Nov 2010

ORDER

Complaint Case No. CC/08/396   1. T.R.Chandran Thaikkattil House,Kannamkulangara,Koorkkenchery Kerala ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Deepam Kuries & Loans Pvt.Ltd Sakthan Thampuran Nagar,Thrissur Rep by Managing Director Anil,Sangama,Pushpagiri Agraharam,Poonkunnam Thrissur Kerala 2. Anil Sangama,Pushpagiri Agraharam,Poonkunnam Trissur Kerala ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh PRESIDENT   HONORABLE Rajani P.S. Member   HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S Member

PRESENT: Adv.K.K.Aneeshkumar, Advocate for the Complainant 1

ORDER     By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:             The case of complainant is that he joined in a kuri conducted by the respondent vide statement No.2. The kuri had a sala of Rs.11,000/- and the monthly instalment was Rs.500/-. The kuri was started on 5.1.04 and the complainant had remitted 18 instalments and the 18th instalment was remitted on 5.6.05. When he has gone to remit the 19th instalment it was told that they are not conducting the business and the amount will be returned after the termination. Even after the termination the amount is not returned. So the complainant was caused to send a lawyer notice on 4.4.08. Hence the complaint.             2. The respondent is called absent and set exparte.             3. In order to prove the case, the complainant filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4.             4. According to the complainant, he is entitled to get back the remitted amount with interest. He has produced the passbook which is marked as Ext. P1. It would show that the kuri was started on 5.1.04 and terminated on 5.10.05. It is the case of complainant that the respondent told to return the amount after termination. Since the termination date was 5.10.05 the complaint should file within two years from the date of 5th October 2005. But the complaint is filed only on 28.5.08. So the claim is barred by limitation. The lawyer notice sent on 4.4.08 will not bring fresh cause of action. The complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act. There are no steps taken to condone the delay also. So the complainant is not entitled to get any amount.             5. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 27th day of November 2010.

[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT   [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member   [HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member