Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/189/2021

Rajesh cKumar S/o Mishri Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Satpal Sharma

27 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    189 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         13.07.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 27.05.2022

 

Rajesh Kumar s/o late Shri Mishri Lal Sharma, r/o Village Kirmach, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. State Bank of India, Railway Road, Thanesar, Kurukshetra, through its Chief Manager.
2. Regional Manager (AGM), Regional Business Office, State Bank of India, Sector-13 Market, Kurukshetra.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Satpal Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Rajan Chawla, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This order shall dispose of an application dated 22.03.2022, filed by the OPs for rejection of complaint on the ground of limitation u/s 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that late Sumitra Devi wife of Shri Arya Kumar, r/o village Kirmach, District Kurukshetra (real sister of the complainant) was having Saving Bank Account bearing No.10622131331 in her lifetime in branch of OP No.1, who died on 07.09.2016. On 12.11.2016, Rs.41549/- were balance in her aforesaid account, but on the same date, Banker Cheque was issued of the aforesaid account of Rs.41549/- and account shown to be closed illegally and arbitrary by violating the guidelines of RBI. This fact came to the knowledge of complainant and he visited to OP bank and get completed the passbook of said account. But despite repeated requests by the complainant, no tangible response was given from their side to the effect that said banker cheque in whose name was issued and what is the status of amount and account. Though when the banker cheque was shown to be issued in the account of said Sumitra Devi, who had already been died on 07.9.2016. The aforesaid Sumitra Devi executed a Will dated 14.03.2016 in favour of complainant being her brother regarding her moveable and immoveable properties. In this way, the complainant was entitled to get the aforesaid amount along with interest till its realization. Husband of Sumitra Devi had already been died on 29.7.2007 and he is only LR of deceased Sumitra Devi, who died issueless. He sent a legal notice on 22.03.2021 upon OP No.1 through his counsel, but inspite of that, OPs failed to redress his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, necessitating him to file the present complaint against the OPs.  

3.                On receipt of complaint, notice was given to the OPs. The OPs appeared and filed the application in hand alleging therein that the complainant filed the present complaint against the OPs for the issue related to 12.11.2016, but the present complaint has been filed after the limitation period of two years by the complainant, as such, the present complaint is barred by period of limitation, as envisaged under Section 69 of the CP Act, 2019, and prayed for dismissal the same on this score only.  

4.                The complainant filed reply to the said application, stating therein that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant, well within the limitation time. The OP bank, being a financial institute is liable to give detail of account (deposit & withdrawal and balance therein) to the holder of the account or to their successor/LRs on demand, because, bank is a trustee of the General Public to keep the funds safe and secure and prayed for dismissal the present application with special costs. To support his contentions, he placed reliance on case law titled House of Dubary Vs. Punjab National Bank, II (1996) CPJ, 223 (NC).

5.                Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is relevant, which reads as under:-

                   69. (1) The District Commission, 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 Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

         

7.                As per above Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant could have filed the complaint, before this Commission within the period of two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. From the perusal of case file, we found that the complainant raised the issue relating to transaction/withdrawn of amount on 12.11.2016, by the OPs, and after that date, there is no document on the case file to prove continuous cause of action, meaning thereby, the cause of action, if any, accrued on 12.11.2016 for filing of complaint, by the complainant. The complainant was required to file the complaint within two years i.e. upto 11.11.2018, but he filed the same on 13.07.2021 i.e. after a delay of more than 4½ years, from the date of cause of action i.e. 12.11.2016, hence the present complaint is time barred. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay has been filed, by the complainant with the complaint in hand. No doubt, the complainant produced copy of legal notice dated 22.03.2021 and alleged that he issued the same to OP No.1 and produced Postal Receipt dated 22.03.2021, in this regard on the case file, but the said legal notice was also allegedly issued by the complainant on 22.03.2021 i.e. after a delay of more than 4½ years from the date of cause of action on 12.11.2016. Mere issuance of legal notice to OP No.1, after a delay of more than 4½ years, from the date of cause of action, cannot provide extension of time, to the complainant to file the complaint, after the expiry of limitation period of two years, as envisaged u/s 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It seems that the complainant allegedly got issued the legal notice upon OP No.1, after a delay of about more than 4½ years, from the date of occurrence, with the purpose to escape from the hammer of limitation of time, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

8.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complaint, filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed, at this stage, because, it will be futile exercise to proceed further with the complaint on merits. The case law, produced by the complainant, is not disputed, but the same is not helpful to the case of the complainant, being rested on different footings.

9.                Hence, due the reasons stated hereinbefore, application dated 22.03.2022, filed by the OPs, is accepted, resultant, without making any comment on the merits of the case, present complaint is dismissed for want of limitation, at this stage, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of litigations. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:27.05.2022.

    

 

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.