DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 155 of 14-07-2009<br /> Decided on : 30-11-2009 <br /> <br /> Amar Nath Garg S/o Sh. Manga Ram, 6972, Green Avenue , Civil Lines, Mukatsar (Punjab).<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Sahara City Homes, Sahara India Centre 2, Kapurthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow 226024, through its Managing Director/Chairman<br /> 2.The Branch Manager, Sahara India Parivaar, Sahara Complex House No. 25, IInd Floor, Rani Jhansi Chowk, Opposite Water Tank, Jagraon 142026.<br /> 3.The Branch Manager, Sahara India, Parivaar, Amrik Singh Road, Near Silver Star Hotel, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Faqir Chand, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajesh Duggal, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the opposite parties with the allegations that he deposited a sum of Rs. 2.00 Lacs under Swarna Yojna Scheme on 27-01-2004 through two demand draft of Rs. 1.00 Lac each of Punjab National Bank vide receiapts No. 010070340767 and 76B and control numbers are 25919202247 and 2248. The opposite party No. 2 refunded a sum of Rs. 1,22,854/- to the complainant through two cheques of Punjab National Bank of Rs. 1,22,854/- each, after deducting an amount of Rs. 5192/- on account of TDS. Thus, an amount of Rs. 50,900/- was paid to him as interest. He asserts that as per his calculations, the amount of interest comes out to Rs. 32,237/- on pro-rata basis under the laid down terms and conditions applicable to the scheme of Swaran Yojna whereas the opposite parties have paid an amount of Rs. 50,900/- only. The complainant has been paid a lesser amount than other similar cases. He moved applications dated 19-11-2007 and 23-02-2009 to the opposite parties to pay the difference amount of Rs. 12,337/- alongwith upto date interest but the opposite parties failed to acknowledge or reply. He also got served legal notice through his counsel on 11-06-09, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 12,337/- plus the difference amount, alongwith interest @18% P.A. and to pay him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides cost.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is an abuse of the process of law and is untenable; complainant has been paid full and final amount vide two cheques both dated 21-05-2007 and thus no amount is due to him.<br /> On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant received the cheques of invested amount alongwith the accrued credit value on 21-05-2007 and the present complaint was filed on 13-07-2009 and as such, complaint is highly time barred by limitation.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence two affidavits of Sh. Amar Nath, and one affidavit Vijay Kumar Ex. C-1, Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-2 respectively, photocopies of payment receipts Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-5, photocopies of application forms Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-7, photocopy of pamphlet Ex. C-8 to Ex. C-9, photocopy of price list Ex. C-10, photocopy of cutting of newspaper Ex. C-11, photocopy of cheque dated 21.5.07 Ex. C-12, photocopy of withdrawl slip Ex. C-13, photocopy of cheque dated 21.5.07 Ex. C-14, photocopy of withdrawl slip Ex. C-15, photocopy of postal receipt Ex. C-16, photocopy of letter dated 20-11-07 Ex. C-17, photocopy of postal receipt Ex. C-18, photocopy of letter dated 23.2.08 Ex. C-19, photocopy of letter Ex. C-20, photocopy of legal notice dated 9-6-09 Ex. C-21 and photocopies of postal receipts Ex. C-22 to Ex. C-25.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kumar, Authorised signatory/Branch Manager Ex. R-1.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 6. Section 24-A of the 'Act' reads as under :<br /> “(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.” <br /> 7. After perusal of record, it reveals that complainant received two cheques being full and final refund of the amount both dated 21-05-2007 and he presented complaint before this Forum on 14-07-2009 meaning thereby that the complaint has been filed after a lapse of period of more than two years when he received the refund. Cause of action for filing the complaint accrued to the complainant on 21-05-2007. Complaint could be filed within two years from 21-05-2007 onwards. This complaint filed on 14-07-2009 is hopelessly barred by time. For this, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled M/s. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd., Vs. Bijay Kumar Roy and Others 2002(2)CLT 105 wherein it has been held that “Section 24-A – Limitation – Claim filed beyond the period of limitation i.e. ore than four years after defects were pointed out – No dispute that the claim petition was barred by limitation – Question of stage of the proceedings has no relevance so far question of limitation is concerned – Contention of the appellant that the claim of the respondent No. 1 was not entertainable by the District Consumer Forum being barred by limitation accepted – Judgement and orders passed by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission set aside.” <br /> 8. There is nothing on record which may reveal or indicate that the opposite parties have acknowledged their liability within limitation period of two years i.e. from 21-05-2007 to 22-05-2009 and any correspondence made by the complainant without being acknowledged by the opposite parties, shall not have any legal effect to extend the period of limitation. <br /> 9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation, with no order as to costs.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 30-11-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member