Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. These are the complaints presented by the complainants against the same common Opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with their grievance that the 1st Opposite party is a Finance and Investments Institution run by the 2nd Opposite party as its Executive Director. That they on 05.09.2002 and 14.08.2000 respectively kept Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- in fixed deposit for a period of 6 months and for a period of 54 months, wherein the 2nd Opposite party had agreed to pay interest at 16% p.a. The deposit of the 1st complainant matured on 05.03.2003, whereas the deposit of the 2nd Complainant matured on 14.02.2005. That they were coolies earning their livelihood through coolie, therefore both of them had entrusted to the one B.K.Chandru for recovery of the deposit amount on their behalf. Accordingly, B.K.Chandru had even got issued a legal notice on 11.01.2008 to the Opposite parties demanding payment of the fixed deposited amounts, but the Opposite parties went on dodging the payments and thereby have failed to pay the fixed deposit amount and thus have caused deficiency in their service and therefore claim for Rs.57,000/- and Rs.1,15,800/- towards the amount due under the F.D. receipt with interest and also damages of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively.<br /> 2. The 2nd Opposite party has filed his version in both the cases and denied having issued F.D. receipts to these complainants as narrated by them in their respective complaints. He has also denied to agreed to pay interest at 16% p.a. and also the alleged maturity of the F.D. receipts. The 2nd Opposite party further denying all other allegations has contended that the complaints are barred by limitation and that one B.K.Chandru was one of the partner of the 1st Opposite party during the year 1997 and as there was serious fall out with the other partners, because of certain acts of cheating he retired from the partnership of the 1st Opposite party in the year 1998. That he at the time of induction of B.K.Chandru as a partner he had good faith in him trusted him and allowed him to manage the financial affairs of the firm. He used to visit various other places on his business and other commitments, with an intention to facilitate smooth functioning of 1st Opposite party, he used to leave the blank cheques and F.D. receipts signed by him and given to the custody of that B.K.Chandru who after is fall out from him must have mis-utilized the blank F.D. receipts containing his signatures. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount, the claims are all false and thereby has called upon to put the complaints to strict proof of their allegations and has prayed for dismissal of the complaints.<br /> 3. The complainants have filed applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act with their affidavit for condonation of delay in filing these complaints. These complainants narrating the investments, alleged to had made with the Opposite parties have stated as if they used to demand payment of the matured value, but the 2nd Opposite party went on dodging. As they are illiterates going to other villages for earning and they were also not feeling well and trusted the Opposite parties regarding payment of the F.D. they could not file the complaint in time and thereby have prayed for condonation of delay in filing these complaints. The 2nd Opposite party has filed objection to these applications contending that the complainants have sworn to false affidavits to overcome the delay in filing the complaint, therefore, the reasons are not acceptable, the delay is therefore cannot be condoned and thus has prayed for dismissal of the applications.<br /> 4. During the course of enquiry into the complaints, the complainants and the 2nd Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. The complainants have produced the F.D. receipts in original, a copy of the power of attorney said to had been executed in favour of one B.K.Chandru and copy of a legal notice they got issued to the 2nd Opposite party on 11.01.2008. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved that there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing these complaints?<br /> 2. Whether they further prove that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in not paying F.D. made by them?<br /> 3. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In view of the answer given to point no.1 this point do not require any answer.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The 1st complainant has alleged to had invested a sum of Rs.30,000/- with Opposite parties on 05.09.2002 for a period of 6 months and that F.D. was matured on 05.03.2003, but on the deposit maturing when she demanded for payment of that amount, the Opposite parties did not pay, therefore she had even entrusted recovery of that amount to one B.K.Chandru. The 2nd complainant claiming to had invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- with Opposite parties on 14.08.2000 for a period of 54 months has stated that the F.D. matured on 14.02.2005 and thereafter stated to had made demands for payment of that amount as claimed by the 1st complainant. As could be seen from the F.D. receipt of the 1st complaint, the deposit matured on 05.03.2003, whereas in the 2nd complaint it matured on 14.02.2005. Though, the complainants have contended as if they made several demands for payment of those matured value, and the Opposite parties postponed and dodged the issue, thereafter, they entrusted recovery to one B.K.Chandru by executing a power of attorney in his favour on 09.01.2008, but, admittedly none of these complainants have placed any acceptable evidence or documents to prove the demands made by them, after these bonds were matured. It is further sworn to by them that B.K.Chandru also made demands for payment of deposit amount on their behalf, but they have not chosen to examine that B.K.Chandru in support of their contention.<br /> 8. The complainants have produced copies of legal notice that one B.K.Chandru got issued to the Opposite parties on 11.01.2008 on their behalf. As could be seen, that through these legal notices the complainants shown to have made their 1st demand in writing for payment of the F.D. amounts. Apart from these, as already stated above they have not placed a piece of evidence to prove the demand they had made and the reply that the Opposite parties had given to them. Therefore, when these deposits came to be matured and when those amounts were not paid to them that date of maturity has given them cause of action for making a claim and even to file complaints before this Forum. But, the complainants have approached this Forum only on 01.02.2008 after lapse of more than 2 years, therefore these complaints are barred by limitation as provided under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> 9. The complainants have filed applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay with their affidavits in support of their applications for condonation of delay and they have stated as if they are illiterates working privately for their livelihood, they were working at different places trusted Opposite parties for payments, therefore they could not bring the complaints in time. It is also further stated as if they were not well. The reasons given by them if they are considered from any angle they cannot be held to be as sound and acceptable for condonation of such an inordinate delay in filing the complaints. Because if these complainants are coolies and when they were aware of the date of maturity and those amounts being big amounts to them, they would not have failed to make demands for payment of the F.D. value and they could not have neglected to bring the complaints for relief within the time provided. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the complainants for condonation of delay in our view cannot be accepted as they are not convincing and sound.<br /> 10. The learned counsel appearing for the complainants in the course of arguments relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 page 1256 and also Commentary on article No.22 of the Limitation Act 1963 and argued that as per article No.22 of the Limitation Act for recovery of money being 3 years that limitation starts on demand is made. Whereas the counsel for the Opposite party relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1958 page 437. The commentary on article No.22 of the Limitation Act and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the complainant have no application to the facts of this case. Because, the amounts in these cases are not deposited under agreement for repayment as and when demands are made. In the case on hand, deposits were made at a particular point of time with the knowledge to both the parties that they shall mature on a particular day, month and year and become payable on the date of maturity and there was no scope for payment of those matured values on demand. As such, the arguments of the counsel for the complainant in our view has no merits. Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision relied on by the counsel for the Opposite party has been pleased to hold as under:-<br /> “ Where a receipt evidenced a deposit of certain amount for a period of 12 months from 01.08.1939 to 31.07.1940 and contained a term that interest thereon would cease on the due date. Held that it was sufficient to establish that the amount due at the foot of the deposit receipt became due and payable on the due date mentioned therein and that there was no question of the amount being payable at any time thereafter on demand being made in that behalf by the creditor. The limitation for its recovery therefore started from the due date namely 31.07.1940 and not from the date of alleged demand.” <br /> Relaying upon these decisions we hold that when F.D. became matured and payable that gave cause of action to the complainants to bring complaints against the Opposite parties, but they did not do so. The complainants have failed to prove as to when exactly they made oral documents. The legal notice that B.K.Chandru got issued demanding repayment was after the expiry of the limitation period and therefore they cannot contend, that day that is date of issue of notice, should be treated as a demand, and therefore the complaint is in time, we cannot agree with the arguments of the counsel for the complainants and also the reasons assigned by them for condonation of delay. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the complaints are barred by limitation and therefore on that ground alone they are liable to be dismissed. As the result, we answer this point in the negative, and complaints are to be dismissed on point no.1 alone. Hence, we do not find any necessity for considering point no.2. We pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaints are dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Keep a original copy in CC 34/08 and Xerox copy in CC 35/08.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />