नि का ल प त्र :- (दि. 29/09/2011) (द्वारा-श्री.एम्.डी.देशमुख, अध्‍यक्ष) (1) प्रस्‍तुत प्रकरण स्विकृत करणेवर आहे. (2) तक्रारदार व त्‍यांचे वकिल गैरहजर आहेत. (3) तक्रारदारांच्‍या तक्रारीचे अवलोकन केले असता सामनेवाला यांचे धरणगुत्‍ती ता. शिरोळ, येथ जाबदार यांचे गट नं. 344/ब/1, क्षेत्र हे. 2 2.51 अरी. पैकी ½ हिस्‍सेची जमीन होती. सदर शेत जमीन बिगरशेती करुन प्‍लॉट पाडून विक्री करणेचे तक्रारदार यांना ठरविले. तक्रारदारांनी दि. 4/04/1998 रोजी नियोजित हौसिंग सोसायटीत प्रवेश फी रु. 1 , शेअर्स फी रु. 250/- व प्‍लॉट बुकींगसाठी रु. 8000/- असे एकूण रु. 8,251/- घेतले आहे व रितसर पावती दिली आहे. तक्रारदारांना अद्यापी प्‍लॉट खरेदी करुन दिला नाही. व सदरचा प्‍लॉट परस्‍पर विक्री केलेचे समजून आले. सबब, सदर रक्‍कम रु. 8,251/- दि. 4/04/1998 पासून द.सा.द.शे. 18 टक्‍के व्‍याजासह देण्‍याचा आदेश व्‍हावा व मानसिक त्रासापोटी रु. 1,00,000/- व तक्रारीचा खर्च देण्‍याचा आदेश व्‍हावा. (2) तक्रारदारांच्‍या तक्रारीचे अवलोकन केले असता सदर तक्रारीस कारण दि. 4/04/1998 रोजी झालेले आहे. ग्राहक सरंक्षण कायदा, कलम 24 (अ) यातील तरतुदीचा विचार केला असता सदरची तक्रारीस कारण घडले नाही व तक्रार मुदतीत दाखल केलेली नाही. तसेच मुदत माफीसाठी स्‍वतंत्रपणे अर्ज दाखल केलेला नाही. सबब, प्रस्‍तुत तक्रारीस मुदतीचा बाधा येत असल्‍याने सदरची तक्रार अस्विकृत करणेत यावी या निष्‍कर्षाप्रत हे मंच येत आहे. उपरोक्‍त विवेचनास हे मंच खालील पूर्वाधार विचार घेत आहे :- (1) (Supreme Court) (CP) p.481 - State Bank of India v. B.S.Agricultural Industries Banking - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24A - Deficiency in service - Section 2(1)(g) - Section 2 (1)(o) - complainant-respondent carrying on business of manufacturing and supplying engines and pump sets - Seven bills of the amount of Rs.2,47,154/- sent by it to the opposite party - appellate bank on 21.04.1994 drawn on Unique Agro Service, P.O. Heria (West Bengal) together with GRs of transporters for collection and remitance of the proceeds toit i.e. the complainant - Bank instructed to deliver the bills and GRs to the drawee against payment - Bank also instructed to return the documents if not honoured by the drawee by 7.6.1994 - Complaint to the District Forum that the Bank neither sent the amount of Rs.2,47,154/- to the complainant nor returned the said bills and GRs - Bank resisted the complaint on the ground of its being time barred and that it had returned the bills and GRs to the complainant’s B.M. Konar, Sales Manager - District Forum allowed the complaint directing the Bank to pay Rs. 2,47,154/- to the complainant with 15% interest and Rs.5,000/- as compensation - Despite the specific plea of the complaint being time barred, point for determination in this regard neither framed nor considered - Bank’s appeal failed toget it any relief from the State Commission - National Commission upheld the concurrent orders of the Forums by the Bank aggrieved by the said order - Provision of Section 24A, which prescribes limitation period for admission of a complaint by a Forum, is peremptory in nature - It requires a Forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within twoyears from the date of accral of cause of action - Delay in filing the complaint may be condoned by the Forum for the reasons tobe recorded in writing if sufficient cause is shown - Expression ‘shall not admit a complaint, occurring in the Section is a sort of legislative command to the Consumer Forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder - In other words, it isthe duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect toit -Whether the complaint in this case filed within time i.e., within two years of the accrual of cause of action ? Letter dated 21.04.1994 of the complainant clearly instructed the Bank to return the documents if not honoured by the drawee by 7.6.1994 - Obviously, the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 7.6.1994 when it did not receive the amount of Rs. 2,47,154/- nor the documents - Limitation thus began to run from 7.6.1994 - Therefore, the complaint filed on 5.5.1997 was apparently time barred, having been not filed within two years - Bank also wrote to the complainant in its letter dated 28.3.1995 that it had returned the bills to its B.M.Konar on 10.5.1994 - Complaint filed on 5.5.1997 even beyond two years therefrom - Complaint held tobe barred by time and, therefore, dismissed on that count - Appeal allowed - Decision rendered by the National Commission set aside. (2) 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court)(CP) - Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another. Limitation - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24A - Appeal - Section 23 - Fire Policy “c” taken by the appellant from the respondent No.1, National Insurance Co.Ltd. for a period of 4 months on 4.12.1987 against loss or damage by fire - On 8.3.1988 they obtained a loan from respondent No.2, Indian Bank by hypothecating the tobacco stored in the godown - In the intervening night between 22nd and 23rd March, 1988 a fire broke out in the godown allegedly due to electrical short circuit burning the entire stock of tobacco - Matter reported both to the insurance company and the bank - Bank preferred a claim with the insurance complay on 14.07.1988 but not pursued it any further - A claim form asked by the appellant from the insurance company for the first time n 06.11.1994 - Getting no response, a legal notice issued to it on 26.10.1995 - reply sent by the insurance company on 21.03.1986 delaying the cactum of fire and refusing to issue a claim form, the claim being time barred - Filing of two complaints by the appellant before National Commission on 21.10.1997 - Contention raised that having regard to the insurance company’s letter dated 21.3.1996, their complaints were well within time - Appellant’s stand failed to find favour with the Commission - Cause of action admittedly arose in the intervening night of 22nd/23rd March, 1988 - Complaints, therefore, held to be barred by limitation of two years having regard to section 24A of the Act - Aggrieved, the present appeal filed challenging the commission’s order - Provision of Section 24A casts a duty on a Consumer Forum todismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies it that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action arose - Cause of action for the appellant clearly arose on 22nd/23rd March, 1988 - By no stretch of imagination the insurance company’s letter dated 21.3.1996 in reply to the appellant’s legal notice dated 4.1.1996 declining to issue the claim form, resulted in extending the period of limitation - Accordingly held : the complaint of the appellant and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation - Commission’s action of dismissing the same upheld - Appeal dismissed. (3) उपरोक्‍त संपूर्ण विवेचन विचारात घेवून हे मंच खालीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारीत करीत आहे. - आ दे श - 1. प्रस्‍तुतची तक्रार अस्विकृत करणेत येते.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.V.N.Shinde] MEMBER[HONABLE MR. Mr.M.D.Deshmukh] PRESIDENT | |
