Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/576

Surjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 576 of 24.09.2015

Date of Decision            :   07.10.2015

 

Surjit Singh Oberoi, 27FF, HIG Flat, Rani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana-141001

….. Complainant

 

Versus

                                                             

1.ICICI Bank Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001.

2.ICICI Bank Ltd. LAS Team, A Wing, 6^th Floor, Automen Estate, Chandivali, Andheri, East Mumbai-400072.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person.

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Surjit Singh Oberoi filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by claiming that the original copy of the agreement arrived at in May 2011 for the loan accounts have not been supplied by OPs. It is claimed that complainant along with his daughter Manpreet Kaur holds two loan accounts, by pledging equity shares namely (L.A.S.) bearing Current Account No.001705009758 and (L.A.S.) Current Account No.0017005009759 with Ops.The bank is not sending monthly account statement in respect of these accounts to complainant, due to which, he is not in a position to know about the amount overdrawn or outstanding  in  the last several months. Ops bank on every Friday takes        into account the change in the values of the shares, on which, amount is overdrawn and  outstanding is worked out, but despite that the statement is not sent to the complainant. Litigation expenses and compensation for torture of Rs.99,000/- sought by claiming that complainant is a senior citizen of 80 years of age.

2.                          Arguments of complainant for the purpose of preliminary hearing heard.

3.                If agreement for loan was arrived at in May 2011, then the complainant should have sought the copy of that agreement immediately thereafter. So,cause of action for getting the copy of loan agreement accrued to the complainant in May 2011, but despite that the present complaint has been filed on 24.9.2015 i.e. after more than 4 years of accrual of cause of action.

4.                Question of limitation being a question of law can be raised at any stage of the pending proceedings. In view of Section 24-A of the Act, it is obligatory to decide that question of limitation first. Before dismissing the complaint as time barred, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under section 24-A(2) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by showing that there is sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed time. This in fact is the proposition of law laid down in case M/s State India Express (Registered) vs. M/s Ranoo Trol Limited-2014(1)CLT-8-9(N.C.). Keeping in view contents of para 3 of complaint, complainant was asked during the course of preliminary hearing as to when shares were allotted to him, but he claimed that those were allotted many years ago and he is not aware about the date, month and year of such allotment. So, virtually complaint has been filed without disclosing the fact qua sufficiency of the cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of 2 years. As and when there is suppression of material facts like this, then equity demand that complaint should be dismissed.

5.                Complainant was asked during the course of arguments as to why he has not sought the copy of agreement in May 2011, but he has simply claimed that letters were sent by him to Ops in August, 2015, the copy of which has been produced on record. Even if that letter in August, 2015 may have been sent by the complainant, despite that same does not extend the period of limitation because as per law laid down in case SAGO Packing Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Insurance Company Limited and others-III(2015)CPJ-5B(CN)(WB), the period of limitation cannot be kept on lingering with every fresh representation. Making of representation cannot stop limitation from running and as such sufficiency of the cause cannot be made out just due to sending of letter in August, 2015 by the complainant to Ops. Rather that letter in August, 2015 was sent after more than 2 years of the expiry of the period of limitation of 2 years prescribed by Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So by sending that letter in August 2015, complainant tried to create evidence. No application for condonation of delay even has been filed. As the complaint filed 2 years after the expiry of period of limitation of 2 years prescribed by Section 24-A of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, complaint certainly barred by limitation.

6.                It is not mentioned in the complaint as to since when the copy      of the monthly account statement not sent, but it is just claimed as if     statement not sent by the Ops for the last several months. Allegations in that respect are vague and general, which do not disclose the date of actual cause of action. On vague and general allegations alone, relief in  consumer complaint cannot be granted and as such, complaint is not maintainable at all.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint being not maintainable, is not admitted for hearing. Copy of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                                      

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                                    (G.K.Dhir)

           Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum

On 07.10.2015

Gurpreet Sharma