Delhi

North

CC/86/2019

JIYA LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SENIOR MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

RANBIR SINGH SAINI

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. CC/86/2019

In the matter of

1. Sh.Jiya Lal

R/o H.No.-1218

Gali No.8, New Vikas Nagar

Bahadurgarh (Haryana)                                                  ....Complainant

vs

1. Senior Manager

Allahabad Bank

Timarpur Branch, New Delhi

At 1-A, Banarasi Dass Estate

Timarpur, New Delhi                                                    ....Opposite party

 

2. Deputy General Manager

Allahabad Bank Zonal Office

New Delhi

At 11, Sansad Marg, Police colony

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001                                   ....Opposite party

 

3. Chairperson and Managing Director

Allahabad Bank, Kolkata

At 2, N.S.Road

•  

 

ORDER

02/02/2023
 

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint was initially filed by Sh.Jiya Lal (now deceased) against Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Timarpur Branch, New Delhi (OP-1), Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank Zonal office (OP-2) and Chairperson and Managing Director, Allahabad Bank, Kolkata (OP-3). During the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant expired on 31/07/2021 and thereafter, his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 04/03/2022.

Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that Sh. Jiya Lal, the complainant was in employment under OP-3 vide PF No.15381 and retired in January 2015.  The complainant was posted at Timarpur office i.e. OP-1 for 08 to 10 years and thereafter got transferred to Azadpur Branch of Allahabad Bank in 2006 and continued to work till his retirement. 

As per the complaint, in the year 1999, the complainant took a housing loan of Rs.1,76,000/- vide loan account No.20433257252  during his tenure with OP-1.  An amount of Rs.1470/- was being deducted from the salary as EMI and the said loan was liquidated on 28/12/2011, without any outstanding dues.    

The complainant took another housing loan vide Loan Account No.20433261870 for Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 2010, for which an EMI of Rs.3,500/- was regularly deducted from his salary.  It has been stated by the complainant that the said loan was also liquidated during his service tenure which is evident from the copy of the letter dated 07/01/2015 issued by Azadpur Branch to General Manager (HR) Allahabad Bank, Head Office, Kolkata, concerning terminal dues of the employee (the complainant), showing as outstanding of Rs.4,05,416/- under different heads of loan.  The said amount of loan was confirmed by Senior Manager (PF), Head Office, Kolkata vide their letter dated 04/02/2015 addressed to Senior Manager, Azadpur Branch, Delhi on the basis of which the terminal dues were released after deduction of the outstanding dues.  

On 06/02/2015, the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs.32,885/- and Rs.646/- have been deducted by OP-1 from SB account No. 20445970268, maintained by the complainant.  The complainant has alleged that the said deductions were made illegally and without the consent and authority in violation of banking rules and regulations. Despite complaint to OP-1 and higher authorities but no action was taken.  A written complaint vide speed post dated 07/09/2018 was sent to OPs ,but all in vain.  

The complainant has stated that OPs have acted in illegal, unreasonable, and unauthorised manner by deducting the amount without his consent, therefore, liable for deficiency in services. The complainant has suffered financial loss as well as harassment, mental and physical agony.   Legal notice dated 17/12/2018, was served upon OPs, which was neither replied nor complied with. 

Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to credit the amount of Rs.32,885/- and Rs. 646/- with interest @12% p.a.; compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment with exemplary cost of the complaint along with litigation/miscellaneous expenses.

The complainant has annexed the statement of account No.20445970268 (though in their complaint it has been referred to as statement of loan account) as Annexure ‘A’, copy of the letter dated 07/01/2015 as Annexure ‘B’, copy of letter dated 04/02/2015 pertaining to release of terminal dues as Annexure ‘C’, copy of complaint written to OPs along with postal receipt of dated 07/09/2018 are Annexure ‘D’ and ‘E’ respectively.  Legal notice dated 17/012/2018 along with postal receipt and proof of the delivery are Annexure ‘F’ to ‘H’ (colly). 

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs, thereafter; written statement was filed on their behalf. 

In their written statement, OPs have taken several preliminary objections such as : the complaint was frivolous and vexatious; the complainant intended to obstruct/delay/frustrate the action to be taken in issue, therefore, filed the present complaint as he failed to discharge his liability in full within the prescribed period; the complainant did not come to the Commission with the clean hand and had suppressed the material fact etc.  The complaint was barred by limitation.

They have submitted that the OP had acted within the limitation of law and with sole intention to recover the outstanding amount.  The complainant was orally communicated and explained about the deduction whenever, he contacted the OP.  They have submitted that the complainant as a borrower and also an ex-employee of bank had approached for financial assistance by way of housing loan for the purpose of purchase and construction/repair of his desired home.  They have admitted that the loan for Rs.1,76,000/- and 1,50,000/- was disbursed to the complainant and EMI of Rs.1,470/- and 3,500/- respectively per month was to be deducted from the salary of the complainant.  However, at the end of the complainant’s tenure an amount of Rs.646/- was due towards his loan account No.500333016942 and Rs.32,885/- towards loan account No.20433241593.  The due amount of Rs.646/- and 32,885/- was deducted from the complainant’s account with due consent received via letter. 

They have further submitted that the complainant had sought clarification regarding the deduction which were communicated and explained orally. They have denied that the loan was completely liquidated and also the service of legal notice. 

The authority letter in favour of Sh. Gaurav Verma, Senior Manager as Annexure’ A’, Housing loan application dated 31/07/1999 as Annexure ‘B’, Loan application dated 26/06/2010 as Annexure ‘C’ , Consent Clause as Annexure ‘D’, Appraisal Form as Annexure ‘E’ have been annexed with the Written statement.

Replication to the Written Statement was filed by the complainant where he has reiterated the contents of his complaint and denied those of the written statement.  It has been submitted by the complainant that as per practice and precedent the bank issues a letter to the retiring employee prior to the date of retirement stating the outstanding dues against the employee towards the bank and as per letter dated 07/01/2015 and 04/02/2015, which were Rs.4,05,416/- and accordingly, the same was deducted by OP out of his retirement dues.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the parties; the complainant has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint.  He has reiterated the averments made in his complaint and has relied on the documents annexed. He has got the copy of the statement of loan account issued by OP as Ex.CW1/1.  The photocopy of letter dated 07/01/2015 as Ex.CW1/2 and the approval by Senior Manager (PF) Kolkata Head office dated 04/02/2015 as Ex.CW1/3.  The copy of the written complaint along with postal receipt of date 07/09/2018 are Ex.CW1/4 to Ex.CW1/6. 

He has also got exhibited the legal notice dated 17/12/2018 along with postal receipt of dated 22/12/2018 as Ex.CW1/7 and Ex.CW1/8 respectively.

OP-1 to OP-3 have got examined Sh.Gaurav Verma, Authorised Representative and Senior Manager of OP.  He has also repeated the contents of the written statement and has got exhibited the evidence by way of affidavit as OPW1/1.  The copy of authority letter dated 26/08/2019 is Ex.OPW O/A, copy of loan application and proposal forms etc. are Ex.OPW O/B (colly).  Copy of documents pertaining to intended home loan are Ex.OPW O/C (colly), copy of consent letter and declaration dated 08/07/2010 as Ex.OPW O/D (colly), copy of original appraisal loan and copy of sanction letter dated 08/07/2010 are Ex.OPW O/E and Ex.OPW O/F are  respectively.  Copy of term loan agreement is Ex.OPW O/G, copy of deposit of title deed dated 08/07/2010 Ex.OPW O/H, copy of other related documents is Ex.OPW O/I, copy of original draft agreement between bank and mortgager are Ex.OPW O/J and copy of statement of accounts from 01/11/1999 to 11/07/2019 is Ex.OPW O/K (colly)

During the pendency of the present complaint, the Government of India notified the amalgamation of Allahabad bank into Indian Bank Scheme, 2020 vide Gazette Notification No.133 {GSR-156(E)} dated 04/03/2020 with effect from 01/04/2020.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and the Ld. Counsel for OPs. We have also perused the material on record. First and foremost we have to see whether the present complaint has been filed with in the period of limitation prescribed under Section-24A ,of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

“24A - 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 instant case, the cause of action first arose when an amount of Rs.32,885/- and Rs.646/- was deducted by OP on 06/02/2015, which is also evident from the copy of passbook on record. It is not the case of the complainant that he came to know at a later stage about the said deductions. He has stated that he was personally visiting OP-1 for reversal of the debit entries. Thereafter, the first undated written complaint made to OPs, which was sent vide speed post dated 07/09/2018, after 03 years and 08 months from the date of deduction.  As per Section 24A, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the present complaint should have been filed on or before 06/02/2017, but as per record the date of institution of the present complaint is 25/04/2019.   

 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tripura & Ors.  vs Rabindra Chakraborty & Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 460] held that: 

“10. In our opinion the suit was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, where there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended.  The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation.  A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the dates on which the last representation is decided.....”

 

Even in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. vs National Insurance Co. & Anr.(2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“22. It is, therefore, clear from the aforenoted correspondence between the appellant and the Insurance Co. that cause of action in respect of the special insurance policy arose on      22-3-1988/23-3-1988, when the fire in the godown took place damaging the tobacco stocks hypothecated with the bank in whose account the policy had been taken by the appellant.  Thus the limitation for the purpose of Section 24-A of the Act begin to run from 23-3-1988 and therefore, the complaint before the Commission against the Insurance Company for deficiency in service, whether for non-issue of claim form or for not processing the claim under the policy, ought to have being filed within two years thereof. As noticed above, the complaint was in fact filed on or after 24-10-1997, which was clearly time barred.” 

“25. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Insurance company’s reply dated 21-3-1996 to the legal notice dated 4-1-1996 declining to issue the form for preference a claim after collapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24-A of the Act.  We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24-10-1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground.”  

 

Similarly the Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III(2006) CPJ 414 NC also observed that no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.

Therefore, it is settled principle of law that no amount of representation shall extend the period of limitation and in the present case the representation was sent through speed post bearing date 07/09/2018, which has been made after the expiry of the limitation period. In the instant case, no application has been filed by the Complainant to explain any sufficient cause for delay of 808 days in filing this complaint from the prescribed period of limitation.

 

It was held by Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Kishore Shriram Sathe vs. Vivek Gajanan Joshi (Revision Petition No. 1953 of 2011) decided on 01.10.2013  that :

“12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

Therefore, in the light of the above judgements, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member		(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar) President