Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he has taken loan from the opponent on 17th September, 2002. He has pledged the documents including life insurance policy with the opponent. He has repaid the entire loan amount on 27th September, 2003. He has requested to return the documents pledged by him. But, the opponent avoided to return it. The L.I.C. policy was matured on 1st February, 2008. As the documents were not return, the complainant lodged police complaint on 2nd June, 2009. As the opponents failed to return the documents, the complainant has filed this complaint for direction to the opponent to return the documents. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and cost of the proceeding. As there is delay, the complainant has filed this application for condonation of delay.
2) The opponent appeared and opposed the application for delay condonation. According to the opponent, delay is not properly explained therefore the complainant is not entitled for condonation of delay and hence the application for delay condonation be dismissed.
3) After hearing both the parties and after going the through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is sufficient reason to condone the delay ? | No |
2) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
4) As to Point No.1 :- In the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that loan was taken on 17th September, 2009 and documents were pledged by way of security to the loan amount. According to the complainant, entire loan amount was repaid on 27th September, 2003. The complaint is filed on 2nd September, 2013 i.e, after ten years. The complainant has also lodged police complaint on 2nd June, 2009. Mere issuing notices will not extend the period of limitation. In this case, cause of action arose on the day of repayment of the loan amount i.e. 27th September, 2003 i.e. before ten years. As per the provision under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, limitation for filling complaint is for two years. The explanation given by the complainant for delay is not proper and sufficient. It is settled law that unless sufficient cause is shown delay can not be condoned. As there is specific provision under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as the complainant was aware about the documents pledged with the opponent, it was necessary to file complaint within two years. We would like to rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Company -Versus- National Insurance Company Limited reported in 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 925. In para 11 of this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under
Para 11 : Section 24A of the Act bars any fora set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly casts a duty on the Commission, admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.
5) We would also like to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3204 of 2013 dated 30th Septembrf, 2013. In this judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has discussed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Post Master General and Others –Versus- Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 5663. After discussing this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down that delay can not be condoned unless sufficient cause is shown. In the instant complaint before us, the cause shown by the complainant is not sufficient. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to condone the delay. Hence, we proceed to pas the following order.
ORDER
1) Application for delay condonation stands dismissed.
2) Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed.
3) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
4) Inform the parties accordingly.
Dated 3rd April, 2014
