DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.173 of 29-04-2013
Decided on 08-10-2013
Dev Singh aged about 55 years S/o Dhanna Singh R/o village Rajgarh Kubey, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.H.D.F.C Ltd., Model Town, Bathinda, through its Manager.
2.Canara Bank, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Manager Rajinder Sidhu.
3.H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda, through its Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.S.K Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Sham Singh Jaura, counsel for opposite party No.2.
Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The instant complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’) by the complainant. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has got a pay order/DD No.162312000800 dated 11.5.2009 for Rs.2,21,000/- from the opposite party No.2 in his account bearing No.1623101010732. The complainant has deposited the said pay order/DD with the opposite party No.1, it got its payment through the clearing house i.e. opposite party No.3 on dated 4.5.2009 as per the certificate issued by the opposite party No.2. The amount of the said pay order/DD has neither reached to its desired destination nor returned to the complainant so far by the opposite party No.1. Despite repeated requests, visits, contacts, the opposite parties are delaying and on 27.4.2012, the complainant sought the information under Right to Information Act but the opposite parties have done nothing. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to return Rs.2.21 lac with interest @ 18% p.a w.e.f. 14.5.2009 till payment alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact that neither the abovesaid pay order/DD has been deposited/credited with the opposite party No.1 nor any such details have been given in the complaint, therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it on behalf of the opposite party No.1 received the payment of the said DD/pay order on dated 14.5.2009 and the same was made to the opposite party No.3 through the clearing house. The pay order/DD was issued favouring HDFC Ltd., it got the payment of the same on 14.5.2009 through HDFC Bank via clearing house. The transaction was completed and the payment of the said pay order/DD has been reached to the payee. The complainant has not clearly stated which was the desired destination of the said pay order/DD.
4. The opposite party No.3 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material facts as he had taken the loan from the opposite party No.1 for the purpose of education of his child namely Rupinder Kaur, she was studying abroad. The complainant purchased the said pay order/DD from the opposite party No.2 of Rs.2,21,000/- that was deposited with HDFC Bank, Kikar Bazaar, Branch for the clearance and was directed to be paid to common wealth bank of Australia Sydney for the payment to Cambridge International College, Melbourne for the remittance of the fee of Rupinder Kaur and the abovesaid amount was transferred in the account of Rupinder Kaur after converting it into Australian Dollars and the complainant was very well aware about the same but now after more than 4 years, he filed the present complaint by wrongly impleading opposite party No.3 as party, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost as incident relates to 11.5.2009 and the complaint has been filed on 29.4.2013 on the basis of false facts that were very well in the knowledge of the complainant.
5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
7. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant got a pay order/DD No.162312000800 dated 11.5.2009 for Rs.2,21,000/- from the opposite party No.2 in his account bearing No.1623101010732.
8. Disputed facts of the parties are that the complainant deposited the said pay order/DD with the opposite party No.1, it got its payment through the clearing house i.e. opposite party No.3 on dated 4.5.2009 as per the certificate issued by the opposite party No.2 but the amount of the said pay order/DD has neither reached to its desired destination nor returned to the complainant so far by the opposite party No.1. The complainant also sought the information under Right to Information Act but the opposite parties have failed to give any information to him.
9. The submission of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has concealed the fact that neither the abovesaid pay order/DD has been deposited/credited with the opposite party No.1 nor any such details have been mentioned in the complaint. No details regarding the date of deposit or any account number has been mentioned in the complaint.
10 The submission of the opposite party No.2 is that the pay order/DD was issued favouring HDFC Ltd., it got the payment of the same on 14.5.2009 through HDFC bank via clearing house. So, the transaction was completed and the payment of the said pay order/DD has been reached to the payee. The complainant has not clearly stated which was the desired destination of the said pay order/DD.
11. The submission of the opposite party No.3 is that the complainant had taken the loan from the opposite party No.1 for the purpose of education of his child namely Rupinder Kaur as she was studying abroad. The complainant purchased the said pay order/DD from the opposite party No.2 of Rs.2,21,000/- that was deposited with HDFC Bank, Kikar Bazaar, Branch for the clearance and was directed to be paid to common wealth bank of Australia Sydney for the payment to Cambridge International college, Melbourne for the remittance of the fee of Rupinder Kaur and the abovesaid amount was transferred in the account of Rupinder Kaur after converting it into Australian Dollars and the complainant was very well aware about all these facts but after more than 4 years, he filed the present complaint by wrongly impleading opposite party No.3 as party.
12. The complainant has produced Ex.C2 certificate dated 27.4.2012 issued by the Manager, Canara Bank, The Mall Bathinda on the request of the complainant. The relevant portion of Ex.C2 is reproduced:-
“It is certified that pay order/DD No.162312000800 dated 11.5.2009 for Rs.2,21,000/-(Rs.Two lac twenty one thousand only) favouring HDFC Ltd. Which was made from SB account No. 1623101010721 was claimed through clearing house on dated 14.5.2009 and was paid to HDFC Bank, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda.”
On this certificate the endorsement has been given by the Manager of Canara Bank, The Mall, Bathinda on dated 22.2.2013 i.e. ’DD No.162312000800 dated 11.5.2009 for Rs.2,21,000/- favouring HDFC Ltd. bears printed serial No.301846’. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice, Ex.C3, to the Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd, Bathinda, in which he has mentioned that the pay order/DD has not reached to its destination, whereas Ex.OP1/2 shows that the said pay order/DD has been cleared from HDFC Bank Ltd., Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda, clearing MICR code:-151240002 dated 14 May, 2009 and received payment through clearing house payee’s account credited. The opposite party No.3 has placed on file an affidavit of Sachin Kumar, Manager, HDFC bank, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda, Ex.OP3/1, in which he has particularly deposed that ’the complainant had taken the loan from the opposite party No.1 for the purpose of education of his child namely Rupinder Kaur, who was studying abroad and the complainant purchased DD from the opposite party No.2 of Rs.2,21,000/- which was deposited with HDFC Bank, Kikar Bazaar, Branch for clearance and was directed to be paid to common wealth bank of Australia Sydney for payment to Cambridge international college Melbourne for remittance of fee of Rupinder Kaur and the abovesaid amount was transferred in the account of Rupinder Kaur after converting it into Australian Dollars and complainant was very well aware about all these facts but now after the gap of more than 4 years complainant filed the present complaint by wrongly impleading opposite party No.3 as party as such complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost as incident relates to 11.5.2009 and complaint has been filed on 29.4.2013 on the basis of false facts which are very well in the knowledge of complainant’. The opposite party No.3 has placed on file Ex.OP3/2, the details of the transactions of the abovesaid demand draft. The relevant portion of Ex.OP3/2 showing the details of the transactions:-
“33B : Currency/Instructed Amount
Currency : AUD (Australian Dollar)
Amount : #5754,#
50K: Ordering Customer-Name & Address
/VC No.PB/11/109/249682
Hardev Singh
263 VPO Rajgarh Talwandi Sabo
Bathinda
53A: Sender’s Correspondent-BIC
/001795814041
HDFCINBBDEL
HDFC Bank Limited
(Delhi Branch)
New Delhi IN
57A: Account with Institution-BIC
/BSB No.066110
CTBAAU2S
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Sydney
(For head office and all Australian branches)
Sydney AU
59: Beneficiary Customer-Name & Address
/10165696
Cambridge International College
(WA)
Melbourne
Australia
70: Remittance Information.
Fees
Student Name:-Rupinder Kaur
PPT No.G7147590
DOB:04/11/1985.”
Moreover a perusal of Ex.OP3/3 shows that the amount of Rs.2,21,000/- has been converted into Australian dollars; Customer Debit A/c Narration:-Renewal for AUD TT 5754 bill 1346P66511 and Customer Credited A/c Narration:-Renewal for AUD TT 5754 bill 1346P66511.
13. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it has been proved that the amount of Rs.2,21,000/- has been reached at its destination. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegation that the amount of Rs.2,21,000/- has not reached its destination. The complaint was admitted but after filing of the reply by the opposite party No.3 and tendering evidence it has been observed that the cause of action arose to the complainant in the year 2009 and he has filed present complaint after the lapse of 4 years, hence barred by limitation. Moreover the complainant was well aware of the fact that the amount of Rs.2,21,000/- has been sent for the fee of his daughter studying abroad. The said pay order/DD was directed to be paid by the complainant to common wealth bank of Australia Sydney for the payment to Cambridge International college, Melbourne for the remittance of the fee of his daughter and the abovesaid amount was transferred in the account of his daughter Rupinder Kaur after converting it into Australian Dollars. Thus this complaint is barred by limitation. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s Kerala Agro Mahinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bijoy Kumar Roy and others, 2002 (2) CLT 105, Civil Appeal Nos.1771-1772 of 2002, decided on 28th February, 2002, wherein it was held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 24-A-Limitation-Claim filed beyond the period of limitation i.e. more than four years after defects were pointed out-No dispute that the claim petition was barred by limitation-Question of stage of the proceeding has no relevance so far question of limitation is concerned-Contention of the appellant that the claim of the respondent No.1 was not entertainable by the District Consumer Forum being barred by limitation accepted-Judgment and orders passed by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission set-aside.”
14. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is barred by limitation, thus hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
15. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum
08-10-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
