BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.602 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.79 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM ELURU WEST GODAVARI

Between:

The Manager
State Bank of India
Vatluru Branch, Vatluru
Pedapadu Mandal,
West Godavari District                                                                                                                                          Appellant/opposite party

        A N D

Guttikonda Syamsundara Rao
S/o Venkateswara Rao
aged about 44 years, Occ:Self
Employment, Kokirapadu Village
Pedapadu Mandal, W.G.Dist.

                                                                ….Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                      Sri M.Narender Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent                   Sri S.Surendra Kumar

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

TUESDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE

  TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.             The opposite party is the appellant. The District Forum has allowed the complaint against the appellant-bank directing it to pay an amount of `25,000/- towards compensation and `1,000/- towards costs on the premise that the appellant bank failed to return the documents pledged by the  respondent.

2.             The facts of the case as seen from the contents of the complaint are that the  respondent  obtained loan an amount of `20,000/- from the appellant-bank by depositing  documents, Degree Certificate, Provisional Certificate, SSC Memorandum of marks, Transfer Certificate, Migration Certificate and the Certificate issued by the District Industrial Centre, Eluru. The respondent said to have discharged the debt during the year, 2000-2001 and despite his request made for several times, the appellant-bank has not returned the documents. The respondent approached the Banking Ombudsman on 8.09.2007 where he could not get positive response and subsequently on 16.06.2007 he got issued notice to the appellant bank as there was no response from the appellant, he filed the complaint stating that the attitude of the appellant-bank in not returning the documents would amount to deficiency in service on its part.

3.             The appellant-bank resisted the claim on the premise that it had not insisted on the respondent to deposit original documents and the respondent deposited photocopies which were returned to him after the loan was discharged. It is contended that as per Banking Rules, original certificates need not be deposited. Later, on 13.06.2003 the respondent availed loan of `25,000/- and discharged the loan. The respondent suppressed the fact of his obtaining the loan for the second time. It is pleaded that the respondent might have lost the certificates somewhere and that the complaint is barred by limitation and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4.             The respondent in support of his case,  has filed affidavit . ExA1 to A14 had been marked. On behalf of the appellant-bank, its manager  has filed his affidavit and the documents, ExB1 to B11.

5.             The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant bank withheld the file relating to the loan of the respondent and though the respondent is not able to produce acknowledgement for submitting the certificates to the appellant bank, the letter written by the Head Office of the appellant bank to one Maganti Nagalaxmi indicates that the appellant bank had obtained the documents, SSC Marks Memo and Intermediate Marks Memo and also the documents relating to the immoveable property of K.Ranga Rao in respect of another transaction.    The District Forum held that non-production of loan file and the letter containing information in response to application under RTI Act would establish that the appellant bank had obtained the certificates from the respondent at the time of sanctioning the loan amount.

6.             Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party bank has filed the appeal contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and there was no any demand from the complainant for return of the documents except the notice dated 16.6.2007.  It is contended that the District forum has erroneously concluded that the appellant did not produce the file pertaining to the loan though 11 documents relating to the loan transaction of the respondent were filed. 

7.             The points for consideration are:

1.   Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation?

2.   Whether the respondent is entitled to the amount of `25,000/- as compensation from the appellant bank?

3.   To what relief?

8.             POINT NO.1        It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant bank that the respondent demanded for return of the certificates on 16.6.2007 by way of issuing a notice through his advocate and he had discharged the loan in the year 2000-2001.  The District Forum has observed that the cause of action continues till the date of filing of the complaint as there was no response from the appellant bank to the request of the respondent for return of the certificates.  The District Forum has referred to the decisions of Madhya Pradesh State Commission in “Iswara Chandra Gangrade & Others Vs New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., and another, 2000 (II) CPJ, 254. 

9.             The District Forum has come to the conclusion that the respondent submitted original certificates to the appellant bank at the time of sanction of the loan under PMRY scheme.  The District Forum held that the respondent has not submitted any acknowledgement in token of receipt of the certificates by the appellant bank.  In regard to the continuous cause of action, the District Forum has not given a clear finding as to how the cause of action is continuous in absence of any demand or request by the respondent for return of the certificates within the stipulated period after he had discharged the loan.  In the circumstances, we hold that the respondent has not discharged his obligation that he had filed the complaint within the period of limitation.

10.            A perusal of the documents filed by the respondent would show that except the notice dated 16.6.2007 got issued through his advocate, there is no any document in support of his claim he has made request for return of the documents within a reasonable period of time.  The respondent has obtained loan on 18.7.2001 and after discharge of the loan he had again obtained loan for the second time which for the reasons best known to him, was suppressed and has not been stated anywhere in the complaint.  The appellant bank has put forth specific case that the respondent had not filed the complaint within the stipulated period and he has suppressed the fact that he obtained the loan for second time after making repayment of the loan amount obtained  earlier. 

11.            “In Mahender Singh Vs Haryana Urban Development and another”, IV (2011) CPJ 117 (NC), the National Commission held that :

“As a matter of law, the Consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of acton and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing.  In other words, it is the duty of the Consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is barred by time and yet the Consumer Forum decided the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside”

12.            The National Commission held that unless the complainant overcame the bar of limitation by showing sufficient cause, consideration of his complaint on merits would not be legally permissible.  The National Commission referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries”, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) and in “V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes”, VII (2010) CPJ 27. 

13.            In State Bank of India Vs M/s B.S.Agricultural Industries in Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2002, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

7. Section 24A of the Act, 1986 prescribes limitation period for  admission of a complaint by the consumer fora thus:“24A. Limitation period – (1) The District Forum, the State   Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State  Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

8.         It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, ‘shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

14.            The Apex Court has considered what constitutes cause of action as the cause of action is determining factor for computation of period of limitation for filing the complaint.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in V.N.Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes, VII (2010) CPJ 27

Since, the term ‘cause of action’ has not been defined in the Act, the same has to be interpreted keeping in view the context in which it has been used in Section 24A(1) and object of the legislation. In his famous work on statutory interpretation, Justice G.P. Singh has quoted Professor H.A.   Smith in the following words:

“‘No word’, says Professor H.A. Smith ‘has an absolute meaning, for no words can be defined in vacuo, or without reference to some context’. According to Sutherland there is a ‘basic fallacy’ in saying ‘that words have meaning in and of themselves’, and ‘reference to the abstract meaning of words’, states Craies, ‘if there be any such thing, is of little value in interpreting statutes’. ... in determining the meaning of any word or phrase in a statute the first question to be asked is — ‘What is the natural or ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in the statute? It is only when that meaning leads to some result which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been the intention of the legislature, that it is proper to look for some other possible meaning of the word or phrase.’ The context, as already seen, in the construction of statutes, means the statute as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statutes in pari materia, the general scope of the statute and the mischief that it was intended to remedy.”

15.            The respondent failed to demand for return of the documents and suppressed the fact that he obtained loan for second time.  In the light of the ratio laid in the aforementioned decisions, the complaint cannot be said to have been filed within the period of limitation in terms of Sec.24A of the C.P. Act.

16.            POINT NO.2        As the National Commission held that it is not permissible to consider the other issues once it is found that the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation, we do not consider it proper to discuss this point.

17.            POINT NO.3        In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the district Forum.  Consequently the complaint is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                     Dt.19.06.2012

KMK*