DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.305 of 04-07-2011 Decided on 19-07-2011
Mukhtiar Singh, aged 65 years, son of Sh. Jangir Singh son of Sh. Thamman Singh, Resident of village Kotha Guru, Teshil Phul, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab National Bank, Branch Kotha Guru, District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. Punjab National Bank, Branch RCC, Jallianwala Bagh Amritsar.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present:- For the Complainant : Sh.K.S.Sidhu, counsel for the complainant. For the opposite parties : Not summoned
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has suffered fracture of his right femur. He admitted in Dr. Karam Dass Hospital, Amritsar where he was surgically operated. At the time of discharge, the staff of the said hospital got deposited the medical bill from the complainant on average basis as their computer was not working condition due to some unavoidable circumstances. Thereafter, on scrutiny of medical bills of the complainant, the hospital staff found that an amount of Rs.3,700/- has been overcharged from the complainant, so the hospital issued a cheque No.14205 dated 18.09.2007 for Rs.3,700/- drawn on United Bank of India, Amritsar to the complainant. The complainant got deposited the said cheque with the opposite party No.1 on 18.09.2007 for encashment who sent the said cheque to the opposite party No.2 but till date, the said amount of cheque has not been credited in the account of the complainant by the opposite party No.1. On enquiry, the opposite party No.1 informed him that they have sent a cheque in question to the opposite party No.2 on 05.10.2007 but is has not been received back from the opposite party No.2. When, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 regarding this, it informed that the said cheque has not been received by them. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. Preliminary hearing has been given to the complainant. Record placed on file by the complainant, perused. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant received a cheque No.14205 dated 18.09.2007 for a sum of Rs.3,700/-. He deposited the cheque in question for encashment on the same day i.e. on 18.09.2007 but the abovesaid amount has not been credited in his account till date. On enquiry, he was informed by the opposite party No.1 that they have sent a cheque in question to the opposite party No.2 on 05.10.2007 but he has not been received the same back from the opposite party No.2. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 who informed that the said cheque has not been received by them from the opposite party No.1. According to his own version, he had duly received the said cheque on 18.09.2007 and deposited in the bank on the same day but he has filed the present complaint on 04.07.2011 which is after a lapse of 2 years whereas the permissible period under the 'Act' to file a complaint within 2 years from the date of action. Hence, the present complaint is time barred. As per Section 24A of the 'Act' which is read as under :- “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 entertained 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.” In the present case, the complainant has not furnished the proper reasons that why he has filed the complaint after much delay. He has mentioned in his complaint and argued that he received a cheque of Rs.3,700/- on 18.09.2007 and deposited in the bank on the same date i.e. on 18.09.2007 but the amount of the said cheque in question has not been credited in his account till date. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculural Industries, 2009 (2) CLT 541, wherein it has been held that:- “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Held that provisions of Section 24A is pre-emptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action – As a matter of law, the Consumer Forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing – If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality – The aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside. (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation – Cause of action to the complainant accrued on June 7, 1994 and complaint filed on 05.05.1997 – Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown – The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise – Complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such – The appeal allowed – The orders of Foras below liable to be set aside and complaint dismissed as time barred.” Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is beyond the limitation. Hence, this complaint is dismissed in limine without any order as to cost. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.
Pronounced 19.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
|
