BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 21^st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 (herein under referred as an Act) for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the OP to refund the entire amount of Rs.40,000/- along with 12.50% interest per annum from the date of making payments till realization.

(b) Direct the OP to pay the complainants Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service.

(c) Direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants towards shock, mental and physical suffering and loss of time due to the deficiency of service on the part of OP.

2. The case set up by the complainants in brief is as under:-

The complainants had deposited sum of Rs.40,000/- as fixed deposit in the year 2012 with OP with interest at 12.5%.  She had submitted original fixed deposit receipt with OP in the month of December, 2014 for payment of principle amount of Rs.40,000/- and interest at 12.5% p.a. till due date.  But, OP failed to refund the deposited amount with interest.

3. The complainants gave a complaint to the Ministry of Corporate by online.  However, OP despite repeated requests failed to refund the deposited amount with interest.  The OP has harassed the complainants mentally, physically and financially.  Ultimately, by issuing notice dated 03.10.2019, the complainants called upon the OP to refund the deposited amount with interest.  The complaint is well within limitation period contemplated under Section 24(A) of C.P.Act, 1986.  Hence, this complaint.

4. Despite receipt of legal notice, the OP failed to appear before this Commission and OP has been placed exparte.

5. The complainant No.1 has filed affidavit evidence and relies on five documents in support of her case.  Heard the arguments of the advocate for complainants.

6. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether complaint is within time?
2. Whether the complainants prove deficiency of service on the part of OP?
3. Whether the complainants are entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
4. What order?

7. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  In the negative.

      Point Nos.2 and 3: Do not survive for consideration

      Point No.4: As per final orders

REASONS

8. Point No.1:  Even though, after admitting the complaint, notice came to be issued to the OP. But, mere admission of complaint does not mean that the complainants are entitled to all the reliefs without considering the legal aspects, entitlement and limitation.  The complainant No.1 has reiterated the facts pleaded in the complaint.  It is born out from the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence of the complainant No.1 and documentary evidence that the complainants deposited Rs.40,000/- on 17.01.2012 with OP for a period of 36 months for interest at 12.5% p.a. The date of maturity was 16.01.2015 and after the maturity, the OP undertook to pay the maturity amount of Rs.57,861/-.  The complainants have also produced brochure to show that if a minimum amount of Rs.25,000/- is deposited for a period of three years, the OP was liable to pay interest at 12.5% p.a.
9. According to the complainants, they handed over the original fixed deposit receipt to the OP in the month of December, 2014 for payment of deposited amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 12.5% p.a. till due date.  However, the complainant by issuing Ex.P.3 legal notice dated 03.10.2019 called upon the OP to refund deposited amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 12.5% p.a. till realization and pay Rs.3,00,000/- compensation and Rs.2,000/- cost of the notice.  This notice came to be served on the OP on 19.10.2019. This complaint came to be filed on 06.01.2020.  Even though, the OP remained absent and placed exparte.  But, it is the duty of us to consider, whether this complaint is within time.  According to the complainant, the complaint is well within limitation period contemplated under Section 24(A) of C.P.Act. 
10. It is relevant to refer Section 24(A) of C.P.Act, 1986 which read thus:-

24 A – Limitation period – (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertain after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

11. According to the above provision, the complaint should be filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen.  As born out from the allegations made in the complaint, oral and documentary evidence, the fixed deposit came to be matured on 16.01.2015.  But, complaint was supposed to file on or before 15.01.2017.  But, complainant relies on legal notice dated 03.10.2019 and contends that the complaint filed within two years from 03.10.2019 as contemplated under Section 24(A) of C.P.Act.
12. As per Section 9 of Indian Limitation Act, once the time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute suit or make an application stops it.  The Section 9 of Limitation Act read thus:-

9. Continuous running of time.—Where once time has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it: Provided that where letters of administration to the estate of a creditor have been granted to his debtor, the running of the period of limitation for a suit to recover the debt shall be suspended while the administration continues.

13. The question arises whether issuance of legal notice dated 03.10.2019 saves the limitation and accept contention of the complainants, the complaint is well within time?
14. If a person wants to file civil suit for recovery of amount, the maximum time limit granted is three years from the date of cause of action. In this case, the cause of action arose to the complainants on 16.01.2015 and complainant had a legal right to file complaint on or before 15.01.2017.  We are of the considered opinion that mere issuance of legal notice dated 03.10.2019 does not save the limitation.  The complainants have issued this notice after lapse of two years nine months from 15.01.2017.  The complainants have not filed any application under Section 24(A)(2) of C.P.Act to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause.  The similar question had come up before Hon’ble National Commission in the following two decisions:-

1. I (2015) CPJ 105 (NC) in the matter between Pappu Mangaratanam Vs. Sai Sha Finance and Chits and another – categorically ruled that Section 24A, 21(b) – Limitation – condonation of delay, service of legal notice not extend period of limitation – cause of action arose on 01.04.2001 when complainant deposited sum of Rs.3,45,000/- as fixed deposit for one year – plea of complainant that cause of action will arise from date of service of legal notice dated 20.05.2004, not accepted – complaint barred by limitation.

The facts and ratio involved in the above decision squarely apply to the present case on hand.

2. Another decision reported in Hon’ble National Commission in case of 2020 (1) CPR 265 (NC) in the matter between Vikalp Mohan and another Vs. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd., and others – categorically ruled that the complaint had to be filed within two years from 05.09.2015, the complainant took the decision of the apartment, but apartment buyers agreement executed between parties on 17.09.2008.  The Hon’ble National Commission categorically ruled that the consumer complaint ought to be filed by 05.09.2017.  The Hon’ble National Commission further held that even execution of sale deed on 09.03.2017 would not be relevant for the purpose of limitation in consumer complaint seeking compensation of delivery of possession. 

15. Even though, facts of this case are different.  But, principle of law involved in this case and principle of law with facts of the first case squarely apply to the present case on hand. Therefore, complaint is barred by limitation.   
16. Point Nos.2 and 3:- It is settled proposition of law that when the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation and if the sufficient cause not shown for condonation of delay, the merits of case cannot be decided by us.  Therefore, these two points do not survive for our consideration.
17. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion made in point No.1, the complaint requires to be dismissed as barred by limitation.  We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 21^st day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainants which are as follows:-