Sri.K. Gopalan: President<br /> This is a petition filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs 33,368/-as the cheque amount and Rs 50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows: The complainant is the Secretary of the National Union of BSNL Workers (FNTO). The union office was acquired by Indian Railway and compensation to the tune of Rs 33,000/- was given to the union and the cheque dated 30.1.2001 was issued by the Tahsildar to the Union. The cheque was produced before the opposite party bank for collection. The cheque was neither returned nor credited in the account. The complainant approached the bank several times. But there was no satisfactory reply from bank. On perusing the account book he found that opposite party have charged Rs 31/-towards the collection charges but the cheque amount was not credited in the pass book. The complainant issued a legal notice on 27.5.2005 calling upon to credit the cheque amount or to return the instrument. In the reply letter dated 18.2.2005contained a statement that the cheque was returned unpaid on 3.8.2001 which is utter lie. The instrument is lost due to the callousness and irresponsible attitude of the opposite party. It amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite party is liable to pay either the amount or the instrument to the complainant.<br /> Pursuant to the notice the opposite party filed version. The contentions of the opposite party in brief are as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite party does not admit that the present complainant is the Secretary of the Union. The perusal of the pass book of complainant will show the period of operation of the account and starting date of non-operation, the date of presentation of the cheque, the date of return and collection charges levied for the bounced cheque etc .The unpaid cheque was received by the officials of the Union in the month of August 2001 itself. Till the end of 2004 there was no complaint or objection about the non receipt of the cheque from the complainant’s side. When office bearers were changed to escape from liability trick has been played by issuing letters to the opposite party that they have not received the instrument. The same cannot be believed. It is a false averment that the letter dt.18.2.2005 was received only after the issue of lawyer notice dt.27.5.2005. The present Secretary cannot say that the bounced instrument was not received by them. The instrument is not lost from the hands of the opposite party and the allegation collusiveness and irresponsibility have no merit. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> On the above pleadings, the following issues have been taken for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> 2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 4. Relief and cost.<br /> Evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A6. Opposite party has no evidence both oral and documentary.<br /> ISSUE NO.1.<br /> Complainant, the present Secretary of the Union. He has not produced any document to prove that he is the existing Secretary of the Union, even after it was challenged by the opposite party. Anyhow or other the cheque for Rs 33,000/- was produced before opposite party for collection. The complainant’s case is that the cheque was not returned nor the amount credited in the account of Union. The cheque was dated 30.1.2001. The complainant alleges that he has approached the bank several times. The contention of the opposite party is that the concerned cheque was returned by the Treasury and the same was received by the then officials of the Union in the month of August 2001. Opposite party also contended that thereafter there was no transaction in the account. Ext.A6 prove that the contention of the opposite party that there was no transaction after August 2001. Ext. A4 is the legal notice sent by the complainant. Ext. A4 says that the former Secretary Mr. Rajagopal has presented the cheque dated 30.1.2001. It was also stated in Ext. A4 that due to some unforeseen reason no transaction was took place in the account. Thereafter the first action taken is the Ext. A4 dated 27.5.2005. It can be seen that there was no complaint for more than three years. No doubt it is necessary to examine whether the complaint is filed within the time prescribed. Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes the period of time for filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum, the State Commission o the National Commission as two years from the date of cause of action. However a complaint may be entertained after the period if the complainant satisfies the District Forum that he had sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within the period prescribed. Here complainant is the Secretary of the Union. It is a functioning body which keeps accounts for income and expenditure. All its conference will have to examine and accept the account. All the conference of a Union should discuss the report and account for its acceptance. They are also bound to audit the account periodically. But even if those things are ignored we are of opinion that the complainant failed to convince the Forum the reasonable cause for not filing the complaint within two years It is found that the complaint is barred by limitation. The issue No.1 is found against complainant.<br /> ISSUES 2 TO 4: <br /> Since the complaint is barred by limitation there is no meaning in going into other issues. Complainant is not entitled for remedy since the issue no.1 is found against complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs<br /> <br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Photo copy of the cheque no.111292<br /> A2. Letter dt. 7.1.2005 sent by P. Rajagopalan, NUTE Group C to the Senior Manager, Kannur Dist. Co,op. Bank, Kannur.1.<br /> A3.Copy of the letter dt. 18.2.2005 sent to the opposite party<br /> A4.Copy of the lawyer notice dt.27.5.2005 sent to the opposite party<br /> A5.Letter dt. 13.6.2005 sent by the opposite party.<br /> A6.Savings Bank Account Pass Book. Account No.86 issued by the opposite party<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />