Case No.214/2014

Vinod Cummra & Anr.  Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

01.08.2014

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts has alleged in the complaint are that Sh. Jai Chand Cummra father of the complainant owned House bearing No.C-143, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi.  He appears to have taken some loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and has deposited original Title deed with the O.P.  From the averment contained in the complaint there had been a suit between father of the complainant and O.P which was pending in the court of Sh. Pankaj Gupta, A.D.J. (Central-13), Delhi.  In their suit some compromise had arrived at between the parties under which father of the complainant paid Rs.29,293/- vide cheque bearing No.331566 which was released by order of the court to the O.P.  However, the O.P has neither returned the original Title Deed nor had issue No Dues Certificate.  Father of the complainant died on 19.01.2013 by present complaint.  It is alleged that O.P be directed to return the original documents and pay cost and compensation.

2.     First of all there had been litigation between father of the complainant and the O.P which was decided by the court of Sh. Pankaj Gupta, A.D.J. (Central-13), Delhi vide his order dated 08.07.2008 and in which father of the complainant paid Rs.26,268/- to the O.P in full and final settlement of the claim.  If it is so, the rights of the parties have been decided by the court of Ld. A.D.J by the order referred to above.  After the order has been passed the dispute between the parties had been settled by judicial order.  Therefore, the complainant may avail the remedy of execution of that order or any other remedy available to him but the present compliant is not maintainable.  Secondly, the matter had been settled by order of the court of Ld. A.D.J. on 08.07.2008.  Under that order the father of the complainant had right to get back the documents. That was the date on which the cause of action had arisen.  The complaint has been filed on 30.07.2014 after 6 years, therefore, the same is barred under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.  Complainant submits that they had given notices to the O.P.  However, this is not a ground for extension of period of limitation.  In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. V.K. Ahuja II (2009) CPJ 284 (NC), it has been held By Hon’ble National Commission that once the cause of action has arisen no amount of correspondence/meeting, will extend the period of limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In view of this, complaint is also time barred.  The same is therefore dismissed.  Copy of the order be given to the parties.  File be consigned to record room.   

President                  Member                         Member