Delhi

North East

CC/14/2016

Shri Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.  14/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Jaswant Singh S/o Malkhan Singh R/o:- E 59/29 Kalander Colony Dilshad Garden, East Delhi Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Punjab National Bank Block-D, Dilshad Garden Delhi-110095   ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. Off: ICICI Prulife Towers 1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

13.01.2016 05.02.2020 05.02.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant in brief is that he is an account holder of OP1 bank by virtue of holding savings bank account No. 3927000100108704 from which account Rs. 743/- was to be debited on 2^nd of  every month towards premium  of policy no. 01889175 availed by the complainant from OP2. However, in August 2008, apart from the scheduled deduction of the said amount on 02.08.2008, there were deduction of Rs. 1,500/- on 19.08.2008 made by OP1 in favour of OP2; on 24.01.2009 again a deduction no Rs. 1,500/- was made in favour of mutual sip and Rs. 1,500/- was again deducted thrice on 24.02.2009, 25.05.2009 and 24.06.2009 from complainant’s account in favour of OP2. Therefore in total Rs. 7,500/- was deducted wrongfully from the complainant’s account between August 2008 to June 2009. Post passbook updation, complainant visited OP1’s branch and ask for explanation for the aforementioned wrongful debit but got no conclusive answer and was rather misbehaved with by OP1’s official. The complainant vide letter dated 08.12.2014 to OP1 demanded explanation and details of mutual fund company, insurance policy no. / policy and folio numbers for the said account but got no reply to the said letter despite receipt of the same by OP1 on 09.12.2014. The complainant through RTI application dated 07.01.2015 to CPIO of OP1 sought information about the debits in question and also Auto debit / ECS mandate in reply dated 31.01.2015 to which application, the response given was that the account of complainant was not enabled for ECS mandate. Further, OP1 vide RTI response dated 12.03.2015 reiterated that no sip / auto debit / ECS mandate record was available with respect to policy number in question. The complainant again vide letter dated 21.07.2015 and 02.09.2015 to OP1 requested for the ECS mandate form with respect to insurance policy and mutual fund policy but both letters were not reply to by OP1 except OP1 orally telling the complainant that in respect of policy no. 2043842785 of OP2, the debits in question were made through ECS but did not give any ECS form print out.  Therefore, vide the present complainant has prayed for issuance of direction against OP1 to refund Rs. 7,500/- wrongfully deducted from his account held with it and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached highlighted passbook entry debit in question dated 19.08.2008, 24.01.2009, 25.05.2009 and 26.06.2009, correspondence sent to OP1 and RTI information.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 25.01.2016. However, the pleadings by both are not being considered here since the preliminary issue of maintainability has to be adjudicated whether the complaint is within limitation or time barred u/s 24A of CPA. since it is the settled law that preliminary issue has to be decided first before dealing with the matter on merits as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs Shri Ramachander Gehlot in CA no. 7107/2003 decided on 16.02.2004 vide which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that issue of maintainability has to be decided before hearing the matter on merit and in judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in Koshy Varghese Vs HDFC Bank Ltd III (2017) CPJ 52 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission held that question in which law point is involved can be decided at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we shall adjudicate the admissibility / non-admissibility of the present complaint.
3. Arguments heard on the same. The debits in question are dated between August 2008 to June 2009 whereas the first correspondence made by the complainant questioning the same has been made in December 2014 i.e. after more than 5 ½ years from the cause of action which already stood expired as per the Act by June 2011. The complainant despite being in knowledge of the debits in question, took no action for five long years before filing the present complaint in January 2016 i.e. after another two years from the date of his first correspondence made with OP1 in December 2014. The Hon'ble National Commission in Samruddhi Co-operation Housing Society Ltd. Vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. I (2019) CPJ 347 (NC), following the settled law on no extension of limitation on pretext of communication between parties as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura Vs Arabindra Chakraborty I (2014) SLT 370 decided on 21.04.2014 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that simply by making a representation by mere filing of the same, the period of limitation would not get extended as not permitted by law, dismissed the complaint as being hopelessly barred by limitation. The Hon'ble National Commission in the said case was guided by its precedence in Panipat Thermal Power Station HPGCL through its Executive Engineer Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. I (2013) CPJ 114 (NC) and Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2006) CPJ 414 (NC) in both of which judgments Hon'ble National Commission held that no subsequent correspondence between the parties after the cause of action can extend period of limitation and the complaint has to be filed within the prescribed statutory period of two years as a person may go on making such representation for years and in such an event, the period of limitation would not commence from the date of which the last representation was decided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bikram Dass Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors AIR 1977 SC 1221 held that Limitation Act is a hard task master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. Therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his right must explain every day’s delay. Sufficient cause has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj and Anr Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 2013 AIR SCW 6510 as that delay was due to bonafide on the part of party and that party has not acted in a negligent manner or remain inactive; therefore meaning adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the court within limitation. The above ratios of Hon'ble Apex court were followed by Hon'ble National Commission in State of Haryana Vs Santra, Anita I (2019) CPJ 211 (NC), Eclectic Developers PVt Vs. Smita Datta Makhija II (2019) CPJ 545 (NC), Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd Vs. Lal Sarn Dass Sarve Hitkari School I (2019) CPJ 500 (NC) and Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs Gurmeet Kaur II (2019) CPJ 19 (NC). The Hon'ble National Commission in Sanjay Singh Vs Baby Chandna in RP no. 2208-2209/2015 decided on 08.09.2015 held that cause of action once accrued cannot be extended by a party by just writing demand letters/ legal notice. In Rishi Prabhat Vs. DDA AIR 1995 DEL 9, Hon'ble Delhi SCDRC held that after expiry of limitation period each day’s delay has to be explained.
4.  The complainant has neither been able to explain the delay nor has preferred any application for condonation of the same as per mandatory requirement u/s 24A(2) of CPA. It is too far fetch to even assume that the complainant was not aware of the debit in questions made between 2008 -2009 from his account maintain with OP1 for five long years or that he had not visited the OP1 in all these years between 2009 to 2014. Therefore following the settled law as discussed exhaustively in the legal discourse of rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission, we dismiss the present complaint as being hopelessly time barred u/s 24A of CPA. No order as to cost.
5.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
6.   File be consigned to record room.
7.   Announced on  05.02.2020

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member