Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/552/2013

Salochna wd/o late Sh.Bal Kishan s/o Sh.Bhagat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana State Coop Housing Fedreration Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rameshwar Singh

04 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 552 of 2013.  

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 05.08.2013

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 04.08.2017.

 

Salochna aged about 56 years, wife of Late Shri Bal Kishan son of shri Bhagat Ram resident of House No.138, Jammu Colony- B Gali No.4, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Haryana State  Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., SCO Bays 49-51, 2^nd Floor, Sector 2 Panchkula through its Managing Director.

 

2. The Sangam Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Yamuna Nagar (previously Known as Sampark Cooperative House Building Society), Near Shiv Shankar School, Opp. Reliance Petrol Pump, Near bye pass (Kamani Chowk) Yamuna Nagar through its President/Secretary.

 

                 …. Respondents.

                       

BEFORE          SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.   

 

Present:           Sh. Rameshwar Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                       Sh. G.S. Manipur, Advocate, counsel for OP No. 1.

                       OP No. 2 already ex parte. 

 

ORDER         (DHARAM PAL  PRESIDENT)

 

1.               Complainant Salochna has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                    Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant’s husband had obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for construction of house in the year 1995 from OP No.2 through OP No.1. Shri Bal Krishan had died on 15.7.2006.  The complainant and her husband had paid the loan installment to the tune of Rs.84414/- up to 31.3.2006.  It is alleged that as per loan policy of the OP No.1 every loanee would be member of Group Insurance Scheme of the Federation and if any loanee died during continuation of loan agreement then the outstanding principal amount on the date of death would be waived off.  As per loan policy, the complainant has applied to the respondent to waive off the outstanding amount in the month of July-2006 along with all formalities but the Ops did not pay any heed to settle the claim of the complainant.  It is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the Ops and prayed for settlement of the loan  as per death claim policy and to issue No Objection Certificate and to return the title deed to the complainant.  They may further be directed to pay compensation as well as litigation charges.

3.                     Upon notice the OP No.1 has appeared and filed written statement taking some preliminary objections alleging that the complaint is not maintainable and there is a no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and answering Op and as such there present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The present complaint is hopelessly time barred and prayed for dismissal of complaint on this ground.  It is contended that the complainant has not come in the court with clean hand and has concealed the true and material facts from the Forum.  On merit it is alleged that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- through OP No.2 in the year 1995 and the term of the loan for repayment is 20 years and on 30.11.2013 an amount of Rs.6,65,869.77ps was outstanding against the loanee.  It is contended that only an amount of Rs.54690.63 ps has been received from the husband of the complainant till 8.3.2005.  As per the policy if any loanee is died and his all due is clear till death then he will give benefit of the policy.  In the present case up to 15.7.2006 overdue was outstanding towards the loanee amounting to Rs.3,29,145/- and the answering OP had issued a notice to the complainant in this regard and for the benefit of the scheme the OP No.1 advised the complainant for depositing of the overdue outstanding amount but the complainant did not clear the amount and as such the complainant does not cover under the scheme as the overdue is not cleared, so the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                     The Op No.2 appeared and failed to file the written statement and thereafter vide order dated 8.8.2014 Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

5.                     The learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A along with documents such as receipt of payment as Annexure C-1, copy of Register Annexure C.2, Copy of Resolution as Annexure C.3, copy of Death Certificate as Annexure C.4, copy of Identity card as Annexure C.5, copy of transfer certificate as Annexure C.6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     The learned counsel for OP no.1 had tendered into evidence copy of Death claim as Annexure R.1, copy of letter dated 20.9.2011 as annexure R.2, copy of letter dated 12.9.2007 as Annexure R.3, Statement of Account as Annexure R.4, copy of Deed of English Mortgage as Annexure R.5 and computerized statement of account as Ann.R.6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely and carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance, whereas the counsel for the OP No.1 reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

8.                     It is not disputed fact that the complainant’s husband had got loan facility for construction of house in the year 1995 for Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was to be repaid in 20 years.  The complainant’s husband had died on 15.7.2006.  The grievance of the complainant is that Ops did not give the benefit of Group Insurance Scheme and did not waive off the outstanding principal amount on the date of death.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had applied for the settlement of the claim/scheme in the year July-2006. 

9.                     Before going on the facts of the case, the foremost question  which arise before us whether the complaint is hopelessly time barred as per Consumer Protection Act or not?

10.                   The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 05.8.2013 whereas the complainant’s husband had died on 15.7.2006 and thereafter the complainant had applied for waiver insurance scheme in July-2006 and the Op No.1 vide letter dated 17.3.2007 (Annexure R.1) advised the complainant to deposit the outstanding amount Rs.1,21,042/- up to 31.3.2007 but  the complainant has failed to deposit the said amount.  Now the complainant had filed this present complainant on 5.8.2013 after a long gap of about six years, which is beyond limitation.

                        Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, is reproduced as under:

                Limitation period. - (l) 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 sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), 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.

 

11.                   Further, the case law titled as Sigma Diagnostics Ltd., Vs. United India insurance Co. Ltd and another, III (2009) CPJ Page 75 (SC), Pappu Managaratanum Vs. Sai Sha Finance and Chits and another, 2015(1) CPJ Page 105 (NC) wherein it has been held that Limitation-Condonation of delay- Service of Legal notice not extend period of Limitation- cause of action arose on 01.04.2001 when complainant deposited sum of Rs.345000/- as fixed deposit for one year- Plea of complainant that cause of action will arise from the date of service of legal notice dated 20.05.2004, not accepted – Complaint barred by Limitation.

12.                   Moreover, the complainant has neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor any explanation has been mentioned in the complaint. So, the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as per Section 24A (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The authorities (Supra) tendered by OPs are fully applicable in the present case.

13.                   In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of the considered view that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 04.08.2017

 

                                                                  ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                  D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                  AT JAGADHRI

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER

 

Note:  Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me

 

      (DHARAMPAL)

                                                                    PRESIDENT.