BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          Complaint No:  151 of 02.03.2017.                                                            Date of Decision: 06.03.2017.

Sandeep Kumar son of Shiv Saran Bhardwaj, resident of House No.281, G.K. Estate, Chandigarh Road, Post Office Mundian Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                           ..… Complainant

                                                Versus

Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Mall Road, Ludhiana

…..Opposite party 

                                      Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                Heard at admission stage. After going through the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant, it is made out that complainant availed loan of Rs.39,000/-from OP bank vide account No.253187 dated 16.07.2010. Complainant mortgaged his gold ornaments weighing 35.300 grams. Even complainant claims to have paid advance interest for six months on 12.01.2011. Complainant claims that when in October 2011, he went for depositing amount and getting back ornaments, then OP refused to get the amount deposited and return the hypothecated ornaments. It was disclosed as if ornaments have already been sold. Complainant claims that no notice or intimation was given qua this auction. Complainant claims to have demanded necessary documents on 27.12.2011, but those have not been supplied till date. Application under Right to Information Act was submitted with HDFC bank, Mall Road branch, Ludhiana on 26.11.2016, but information has not been provided under Right to Information Act even. Complainant claims that he is ready to pay the due amount up to October 2011 even today. Prayer made for directing Ops to release the ornaments and pay compensation.

2.                From the perusal of entire complaint, it is made out that the complainant got knowledge regarding auction of the hypothecated ornaments in October 2011, when he claimed to have gone for depositing balance amount, but OP refused to return the ornaments. So virtually cause of action accrued to complainant in October 2011. This complaint filed on 02.03.2017 i.e. after five years and five months of the accrual of cause of action. Complaint as per Section 24-A of The Consumer Protection Act must be filed within two years of accrual of cause of action and if same not filed, then same is liable to be dismissed. Complainant unable to convince as to how his complaint is within limitation. On asking, he goes on pleading that direction should be issued to OP to return the hypothecated ornaments.

3.                Question of limitation is a question of law, which can be raised at any stage of pending proceedings, in view of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act. It is obligatory to decide that question of limitation. Opportunity of hearing to complainant is given before holding the complaint as time barred, but he is unable to explain the cause for not filing the complaint within prescribed time. The term cause of action is cause of action, which gives occasion for and forms the foundations of the suit, which has to be decided on facts of each case is preposition of law laid down in case M/s. State India Express (Regd.) Vs M/s. Ranutrol Limited and others 2014(1) CLT 8-9 (NC). Cause of action accrued to the complainant as and when his request not acceded for return of gold ornaments in October 2011 and as such, this complaint being filed beyond more than three years of period of limitation of two years, envisaged by Section 24-A (2) of the Act liable to be dismissed, being barred by limitation and the same is hereby dismissed.

4.                In case the complainant filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 with Manager on 26.11.2016, but the information in that respect not provided, then certainly separate remedy under Right to Information Act is available to complainant. Right to Information Act is a complete code in itself. It provides full remedy available under such act. Consumer Complaint is not maintainable in case grievance remains  unredessed under provisions of Right to Information Act is the proposition of law laid down in cases S. Dorai Raj Vs Divisional Personnel Officer 1(2014) CPJ 444 (NC) and Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs Public Information Officer etc. 2015(1) CLT 259 (NC). So information under Right to Information Act not provided to complainant, then he should avail the remedy under provisions of Right to Information Act. Consumer complaint for redressal of that grievance is not maintainable.   

5.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint being barred by limitation dismissed at admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                    (G.K. Dhir)

                                       Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:06.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.