District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 565/2021.
Date of Institution: 02.11.2021.
Date of Order:.05.06.2023.
Rajvir Singh son of Shri Sukhram resident of village Machgar, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce now merge with Punjab National Bank Branch Ahir Building, Mohna road, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad through its Branch Manager/Authorized representative.
2. Income Tax Department, Office of Income Tax Officer, Ward -11(2), Faridabad, C.R.Building, Faridabad through its Officer.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Sunil Dixit, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Bhalla, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No. 2 ex-parte vide order dated 22.03.2023.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the consumer with the opposite party No.1 bank having saving account No. 00882010106440 since 2002. On 05.01.2013 some unknown person inclusion with the opposite party No.1 deposited a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- in the said saving account of complainant without his knowledge and notice and the said amount was transfer/withdrawn from the said account of complainant on the same day i.e. 5.1.2013 The complainant was an illiterate farmer and this fact came into the knowledge of complainant when he received a notice in February 2020 from opposite party No.2 regarding this transaction and after receiving the said notice, complainant contact the opposite party No.1 and enquired regarding this transaction but opposite party did not give any satisfaction reply. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 several times to clear the status of the said transaction but opposite party No.1 had flatly refused to tell that who deposited and withdraw/transfer the funds from the account of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 24.08.2021 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) furnish the complete details and status of the fake transaction dated 5.1.2013 in the saving account of the complainant with the relevant deposit and withdrawal/transfer slip.
b) Opposite party No.2 to withdraw the impugned notice/letter No. 10248664741 (1) dated 07.902.2020.
c) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No. refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that sum of Rs.11,50,000/- in cash was deposited in the account of complainant on 05.01.2013 and on the same day said amount was transferred to fixed deposit account bearing No. 00883031070798 opened in name of the complainant. The said fixed deposit was closed premature on 28.02.2013 and the amount was transferred to the saving account of the complainant. It was pertinent to mention that the replying opposite party, as per its record management policy, preserve the records of cash deposit slip for the period of 8 years only. As period of more than 8 years have elapsed since the date of deposit he ascertained as to whether the cash was deposited by the complainant himself or any other person. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.03.2023.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–PNB with the prayer to: a) furnish the complete details and status of the fake transaction dated 5.1.2013 in the saving account of the complainant with the relevant deposit and withdrawal/transfer slip. b) Opposite party No.2 to withdraw the impugned notice/letter No. 10248664741 (1) dated 07.902.2020. c) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Rajvir Singh, Ex.C-1 –(colly) – covering page of bank
alongwith statement, Ex.C-2 - letter dated 07.02.2020,, Ex.C-3 – letter dated 26.08.2021,, Ex.C-4 – postal receipt, Ex.C-5 – letter dated 27.09.2021, Ex.C-6 – legal notice, Ex.C-7 – postal receipt, Ex.C-8 - RTI application,, Ex.C-9 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 – affidavit of Shri Anu Aggrwal, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana, Ex.R-1 – Customer Account Ledge report from 05.01.2013 to 28.02.2013 , Ex.R-2 - Customer Account Ledger Report from 05.01.2013 to 28.02.2013.
7. In this case, an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- in cash was deposited in the account of complainant on 05.01.2013 and on the same day said amount was transferred to fixed deposit account bearing No. 00883031070798 opened in name of the complainant. The said fixed deposit was closed premature on 28.02.2013 and the amount was transferred to the saving account of the complainant. A period of more than 8 years have elapsed since the date of deposit he ascertained as to whether the cash was deposited by the complainant himself or any other person.
Counsel for the opposite party has placed on reliance in case titled Gannmani Anasuya & Ors. Vs. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary & Ors. Passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No. 7318 of 2000, decided on 17.05.2007 In which it has been held that “Limitation act, Section 3 – Suit barred by limitation, no plea in this regard raised by a party – Held: In terms of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is for the court to determine the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact as to whether such a plea has been raised by the parties – such a jurisdictional fact need not, thus, be pleaded.”
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties as well as the above authority, the Commission is of the opinion that the present complaint is time barred under Limitation Act as the alleged cause of action arose on 2013 and the complaint had been filed in the year 2021 i,e 02.11.2021 after expiry of 8 years.
9. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed being time barred. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 05.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
