Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/96/2016

Rulda singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.k Finance Co - Opp.Party(s)

Chandan Gulati

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                  

                               Consumer Complaint No.  96/2016

                               Date of Institution                   :   19.10.2016      

Date of decision             :   03.04.2017

Rulda Singh S/o Kishan Singh R/o Village Sahlon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

1. S.K. Finance Company having its office at Railway Road, Nawanshahr through its under mentioned partners:-

1. Navtej Singh S/o Tarsem Singh R/o Village Sahlon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
2. Mohinder Kaur W/o Tarsem Singh R/o Village Sahlon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Sh.Nipun Bhalla, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Ex parte.

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 ORDER

PER S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed Rulda Singh – complainant.  The complainant has deposited the amount with OPs as under:-

1. Rupees One Lakh (Rs.1,00,000/-) vide deposit receipt bearing No.1022 dated 09.05.2010 as Fixed Deposit New for a minimum period of 36 months @ 12% per annum.
2. Rupees One Lakh (Rs.1,00,000/-) vide deposit receipt bearing No.1023 dated 21.08.2010 as Fixed Deposit New for a minimum period of 36 months @ 12% per annum.
3. Rupees Eighty Thousand (Rs.80,000/-) vide deposit receipt bearing No.1017 dated 01.06.2011as Fixed Deposit New for a minimum period of 36 months @ 12% per annum.

2. That since the expiry of minimum period of 36 months the complainant has repeatedly approached the office of OPs at Railway Road, Nawanshahr & its partners in person to get the maturity value which includes 12% per annum for each of said deposits as detailed above but the OPs have been putting off the matter on one pretext or other and thereby avoiding to discharge their liability.  Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice dated 31.08.2016 to the OPs through his counsel calling upon OPs to pay maturity value which includes principle amount alongwith interest @12 per annum from the date of deposits within a week from date of receipt of the notice but of no avail.  Hence, this complaint filed with prayer that OPs be directed to make payments of maturity value of aforesaid four deposit receipts alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and also directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses. 
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service OPs failed to appeared and ultimately both the OPs were proceeded against ex parte. 
4. In order to prove the complaint, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Rulda Singh – complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. deposit receipts dated 09.05.2010, 21.08.2010, 01.06.2011 Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, respectively copy of notice dated 31.08.2016 Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through case file alongwith documents very minutely.
6. Counsel for complainant submitted that cause of action accrued to complainant when the maturity period i.e. three years has been expired of each receipts but despite request to the OPs and despite legal notice dated 31.08.2016, the OPs had miserably failed to make payment and as such the legally cause of action accrued to the complainant since the date of maturity of value of said receipt and further prayed that giving directions to OPs to make the payment of each amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and compensation as well as litigation expenses.
7. No doubt, at the time of admission of the present complaint, the predecessor of undersigned has categorically mentioned in the admission order that complaint is within limitation but we think that the factum of limitation & pecuniary jurisdiction is considered simply for issuing notice to the OPs and that findings is not final because the factum of limitation as well as other factum is to be finally adjudged after giving an opportunity to the complainant to place on the file any relevant documents wherefrom this Forum can ascertain whether he is consumer or his complaint is within limitation. For that purpose, the complainant has simply brought on file a legal notice but we think that time of limitation once accrue cannot be stopped as per Section 9, of Limitation Act.  In this case limitation started from the expiry of three years maturity period of receipts which is as under:-

1. Under Receipt No.1022 cause of action accrued on 09.05.2013.
2. Under Receipt No.1023 cause of action accrued on 21.08.2013.
3. Under Receipt No.1017 cause of action accrued on 01.06.2014.

8. So it means that the complainant can file the complaint within a period of two years from the date of accrual of limitation but in this complaint complainant has filed this complaint after expiry of two years i.e. filed on 19.10.2016 and moreover like this case wherein specific time is given for making payment then question of recurring cause of action does not arise and accordingly, we find that complaint of the complainant is time barred. 
9. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 03.04.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President