| Complaint Case No. CC/696/2015 |
| | | | 1. R.Anitha | | R.Anitha, W/o Shyam Narayana Swamy, No.589, 11th B Main, 15th Cross, MIG 2nd Stage, B Settor, Yalahanka New Town, Bangalore-64. |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/s Chanakya Finance Corporation 9 others | | No.381, 1st Floor, 2nd Cross, Benki Nawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore. Rep. by its Managing Partners, A.L.Nanjundaraje Urs, Rajeevalochana | | 2. A.L.Nanjundaraje Urs | | S/o Late Lingaraje Urs, D.No.725, II Cross, Vishwamanava Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysuru | | 3. Rajeevalochana | | S/o V.V.Venkatachalaiah, No.265, VIII Cross, Gollageri, Dewans Road, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysuru. | | 4. M.K.Biddappa | | S/o M.S.Kariappa, No.20, Badaga Village, PNC College Post, Madikerei | | 5. Leelavathi | | W/o M.Shivanna, No.453, 1st Cross, 1st Stage, Gayathripuram, Mysuru. | | 6. S.Nagarathna | | W/o R.Srinivas, No.834, 1st Cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. | | 7. M.Dakshayani | | W/o R.Ramesh, No.834, 1st Cross, Kamatageri, Mandi Mohalla, Mysuru. | | 8. Jayaprakash | | S/o Appavoo Pillai, No.3047, 1st Cross, 1st Stage, Gokulam, Mysuru. | | 9. Lalitha | | W/o T.V.Venkataramu, No.3, Gokulam 4th Stage, Manjunathapura, Mysuru | | 10. A.M.Monappa | | S/o A.P.Mandappa, No.20/41, Near Health Office, Madikeri. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | ORDER DICTATED BY SRI H.M.SHIVAKUMARASWAMY, PRESIDENT This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest and compensation. After hearing advocate for complainant, this matter is set down for orders. The points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as under :- - Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- To what order?
Our findings on the above points are as follows:- Point No.1:- In the affirmative. Point No.2:- As per the final order. REASONS Point No.1:- During arguments, counsel representing the complainant submits that the present complainant has deposited as per original bonds Rs.2,00,000/- on 14.08.2007 and maturity date is 14.08.2010, another for Rs.1,00,000/- deposited on 10.09.2007 and maturity date is 10.09.2009 and another Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited on 01.9.2006 and maturity date is 01.09.2009, for recovery of the said amount with interest, this complaint is filed. In para 7 it is alleged interest on F.D. was receiving by the complainant and the last monthly interest received is in the month of February 2010, thereafter opposite parties stopped paying interest in spite of oral requests, payment was not made and finally on 14.12.2014 the complainant approached the opposite parties in Mysore Jail and demand payment which was denied by the opposite parties i.e. the date of cause of action to file this complaint. But, the say of the complainant cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the date of maturity of the claim in these deposits are 14.08.2010, 10.09.2009 and 01.09.2009, if these dates are taken into consideration, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as per the provision of section 24(A)(1) of C.P.Act and thereby, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation. This view of the Forum is supported by the judgements of the Hon’ble National Commission in the following two cases: - I (2015) CPJ 105 (NC) – Appu Mangarathnam Vs. Shai Sha Finance and Chits and another.
- IV (2014) CPJ 509 (NC) – Richard Raja Singh and others Vs. Ford Motor Company Ltd.,
The Hon’ble National Commission in these cases clearly observed that the date of demand or date of legal notice will not give raise to any fresh cause of action and the say of the complainant that the cause of action starts on 14.12.2014 when opposite parties denied the demand cannot be accepted. Hence, the Point No.1 answered in the affirmative. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings recorded on point No.1, the present complaint is not filed well within two years from the date of respective maturity dates and claim is barred by limitation. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER Complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation. Return the original bonds to the complainant or his counsel. | |
