1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that the Ops 1 & 2 floated a housing scheme for its employees and invited applications vide their Circular dt.5.7.2008 and 14.8.2008.  The complainant was an employee of HAL and accordingly applied under the housing project and paid one installment of Rs.51, 000/- on 17.8.2008 and another of Rs.1, 78,000/- on 12.2.2009.  It is submitted that the Ops miserably failed to provide plot of land and have changed the locations of the proposed project several times and hence the complainant applied for refund of his money on 30.4.2012 and on 21.1.2016 to which the Ops have not yet responded.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OPs to refund Rs.2, 29,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation etc.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed same and similar counter contending that the OP.1 is no more the President of HAL Housing Committee (HHC) as he was transferred to other Division of HAL and the OP.2 has rendered his dedicated services   in his ex officio capacity to the HHC.  It is contended that the complainant applied for refund of money on 30.4.2012 without any further communication and finally sent a letter on 21.1.2016 which clearly reveals that the cause of action arose on 30.4.2012 and hence this case is barred by limitation.  The Ops submitted that the HHC after collecting subscription amount from its employees engaged a property dealer who after receiving the money has deceived the committee for which court case is pending against him.  The Ops further contended that this case suffers mis joinder of parties and seeking direction to seize the accounts of HHC is not correct.  Denying the case of the complainant as consumer dispute, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.3 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is neither directly nor indirectly connected with OP.3 and hence the complainant has no locus standi to file this case against the bank.  It is further contended that the entire allegation of the complainant comes under civil rights and hence the complaint petition bears no merit.  The OP.3 also raised the issue of limitation for filing of this case.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The OP No.4 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant cannot be termed as consumer of this OP as no paper are produced or pleaded so as to fasten the liability on the OP under the law.  It is also not shown if any consideration money has been passed to this OP to make him liable and hence filing of present case against the OP is bad in law.  It is further submitted that the office bearer of HHC including the complainant herein are litigating in their personal capacity and they are not under any control of either the Company or this OP as regards the functioning of the society.  The OP No.4 is stationed at Bangalore and was completely ignorant of such development which is limited to the opted employees of the Koraput Division and this OP is no way related to the said society in any manner.  With these and other contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.                     The complainant as well as Ops 1 & 2 has filed certain documents.  The complainant as well as Ops 3 & 4 has also filed affidavits in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

6.                     In this case the complainant stated that the Ops floated a housing project for its employees at Bhubaneswar vide Circular dt.05.07.2008 and dt.14.8.08 and the complainant by applying for a plot of land under that project had deposited Rs.2, 29,000/- in two installments ended with dt.12.2.2009.  As the Ops miserably failed to provide the plot, the complainant applied for refund of his deposit on 30.4.2012 and 21.1.2016 but the Ops have not yet responded.

7.                     The Ops 1 & 2 have challenged the case of the complainant under limitation stating that the complainant applied for refund of his deposit on 30.4.2012 and without any communication to that effect finally sent a letter on 21.1.2016.  According to the Ops, the cause of action arose when the complainant first applied for refund of his deposit on 30.4.2012 and the present case has been filed on 17.2.2016 and hence this case is barred by limitation.

8.                     We have heard from the parties on the point of limitation.  Before going into the other merits of this case, it is incumbent on our part to decide the preliminary issue raised by the Ops.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant had applied for refund of his deposit on 30.4.2012 and remained silent.  The complainant had also filed an FIR against the Ops 1 & 2 before local Police on 31.07.2013 seeking appropriate action.  The result of FIR was not disclosed in this case.  It is also seen that the complainant had requested for 2^nd time for refund of his deposit on 21.1.2016 and filed this case on 17.2.2016.  From the above facts, it was noticed that the complainant applied for refund of his deposit on 30.4.2012 and tried elsewhere to get refund of his deposit for pretty long time.  After more than three and half years, the complainant again applied for refund of his deposit with the Ops.  Hence the actual limitation to this case started from 30.4.2012 but not from 21.1.2016.  As per settled principle of law, making correspondence does not enlarge the period of limitation.  Therefore, the complainant would have filed this case within two years from dt.30.4.2012 but he utterly failed to do so.  Sending a request letter on 21.1.2016 does not enlarge the period of limitation.  Hence we can safely hold that the case of the complainant is hopelessly barred by time.

9.                     The complainant further stated that Economic Offense Wing of Odisha Police, Bhubaneswar has registered a case against the Ops on complaint by the complainant and some depositors and the Ops are on bail from the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha.  Hence it is very much clear that this matter has been taken up by an Investigating Agency and a case is under sub judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha.

10.                   In view of bad by limitation and for the other circumstances of the case, we dismiss the case of the complainant.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)