Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1197/2015

M/S PINTOJI FOODS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

R.B. ARORA

15 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 15.01.2016

Complaint No.1197/2015

 

In the matter of:

M/s. Pintoji Foods Pvt. Ltd.,

At: F-45, UPSIDC Industrial Area,

Gopal Pur (Secundrabad), District

Bulandshaher (U.P.)

Through : Its Director, A.N. Jha.                                            …........Complainant

 

Versus

Punjab National Bank,

Tota Ram Bazar,

Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035.                                                          ... .….....Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The case of the complainant is that it availed credit limits offered by OP bank at F-45, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Secundrabad, District Bulandshaher (UP) against the charge of hypothecations of raw material, stocks, semi-finished, finished goods, machinery etc. OP obtained insurance cover of Rs. One crore besides cover from guarantee corporation of India for complainant from year to year and charged requisite charges in the account of complainant. Insurance policy was issued in OPs name as insured although premium was debited to the account of borrowers/complainant/guarantors but OP did not furnish copy of the policy to the complainant.  To the OPs knowledge, intimation was given by complainant that heavy and floody rains which took in the year 2010, had eaten away and washed away entire stocks of the borrowers lying at the premises mentioned in para-4 of the complaint. The complainant requested to get the losses surveyed through authorized officers of insurance company and lodge insurance claim and adjust the proceeds of insurance claim towards its account, under intimation to complainant. The complainant did not receive intimation or copy of insurance claim. The same indicates that OP has not lodged insurance claim with the insurance company. The OP filed Suit/OA before DRT-III Delhi and obtained exparte final order and recovery certificate against the complainant. Hence, this complaint for compensation for loss of amount of non-filing of claim with guarantee corporation of India to the extent of Rs. 55 lac, Rs.40 lacs as compensation for loss of amount of non-filing of claim with insurance company and Rs.4.50 lacs as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation.  The cause of action arose on 15.04.2015 when complainant was told by OP about non-filing of claims with Guarantee Corporation and Insurance Company.  It also arose on 21.05.2015 when legal notice for demand was sent.

 

2. We have gone through the material on record and heard the counsel for complainant for the purpose of admission.  At the very outset, it may mentioned that heavy and floody rains took place in the year 2010 and goods were eaten away and washed away in the year 2010. The complaint filed in December, 2015 is barred by limitation.  Limitation for filing complaint in Consumer Court is two years u/s 24A Consumer Protection Act.

 

3. The OP filed original application in DRT in the year 2011 which is clear from the judgement of DRT filed by complainant itself. The complainant could have derived knowledge from the said proceedings that OP bank did not lodge any claim with the Guarantee Corporation and Insurance Company and no adjustment was given.

 

4. Service of notice by complainant does not give rise to cause of action.  Otherwise there would be no end and limitation would be defeated.  The complainant can always serve a notice after 10 years or 20 years and come to the court that cause of action arose on service of said notice.

 

5. It appears that present complaint is counter blast to the decision of DRT which directed the complainant to  pay Rs.73,56,610/-.

 

6. Territorial jurisdiction is also under cloud.  The complainant is having business in Secundrabad, Distt. Bulandsheher, UP. The good which were hypothecated with the OP were lying in Bulandsheher, UP.  Loss took place in Bulandsheher, UP.  Thus, Consumer Court in Bulandshaher can alone have jurisdiction.  Merely, because OP has office in Delhi does not give consumer court of Delhi jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

 

7. In view of the above discussion, complaint is dismissed in limini.

 

8. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                          (S. C. Jain)         Member

245.