STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA `

AT HYDERABAD

                                                                                R.P.  No. 3 of 2017

                                                                                                Against

                                                                P.P. No. 7 of 2016 against CC No. 50 of 1996

                                                                      District Consumer Forum, Warangal

Between :

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Hanamkonda Branch, Warangal District

Represented by its Branch Manager

Sri P. Harihara Prasad, S/o Sri P. Koteswara Rao                  … Petitioner/J.Dr/opposite party

And

Smt. Pallepati Shoba, W/o Sri Mohan Rao,

Aged 51 years, Occ : Household

Flat No. 102, H.No. 12-13-659, Sai Durga Nilayam,

Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Hyderabad                   …             Respondent/D.Hr/complainant

Counsel for the Petitioner                               :           M/s. Ganu & Co

Counsel for the Respondent                           :           Sri K. V. Rao

On 4.5.2017 a memo was  filed by Smt. P. Shoba withdrawing her counsel  as she is not cooperating as such she is authorizing her husband Mohan Rao to represent her case.

Coram            :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla             …        President

And

Sri Patil Vithal Rao                           ..          Member

Thursday, the Fifteenth  Day of June

Two Thousand Seventeen

Oral order :    ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            *****

1. This is a Revision petition  filed Under Section 17 (b)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the J.Dr/opposite party against the D.Hr/complainant to set aside the order dated 5.1.2017 passed by the District Forum, Warangal District in P P No. 7 of 2016 in CC 50 of 1996  in issuing NBW .
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the petition before the Forum below.
3. The case of the D.Hr/complainant is that she filed PP 7 of 2016 in CD 50 of 1996 to punish the J.Dr/opposite party by imposing a sentence of imprisonment or fine or both  for non-compliance of the order  in CD. The District Forum issued notice to the petitioner/J.Dr.  Despite number of adjournments,  i.e., 3 months, the J.Dr called absent and no representation. Hence the District Forum issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner/J.Dr on 29.09.2016. On 24.10.2016, appeared and given undertaking that he will comply with the orders. On 24.11.2016, counsel for the petitioner/J.Dr filed vakalat and counter and argued that the PP was barred by limitation since it was filed on 2.5.2016.  The District Forum came to the conclusion that the PP is not barred by limitation and hence the PP is enforceable. Since the J.Dr. has not complied with the undertaking given, hence NBW was issued against J.Dr.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the J.Dr/opposite party preferred this Revision on the ground that (i) FA was disposed of in the year 2001 and PP is filed in the year 2016 , i.e., after nearly 15 years but it should be filed within a period of 12 years and hence the Penalty Petition is barred by limitation  (ii)  the District Forum could not have  issued an NBW against the present Branch Manager.
5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
6. (i)          The first contention of the petitioner is that   the PP was filed after 15 years but it

             Should be filed within a period of 12 years and hence it is barred by limitation.

2. The respondent/petitioner submits that as per 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 which deals with period of limitation in respect of the petitions, i.e, revision petitions, review, application for set aside the exparte order etc., and 14(1)(iv)  specifies that ‘ the period of limitation for filing any application for which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act.         
3. Consumer Protection Act 1986 does not provide any limitation period for filing execution application. 
4. Therefore it cannot be said that the petition is barred by limitation.

7. (i)          The further contention is that the District Forum could not have  issued an NBW against the present Branch Manager. 

(ii)         The petitioner is a Private Bank represented by its Branch Manager. Persons may come and go but the Institution is permanent till it was abolished. Different persons may discharge duties of the same position at different times. But the present Incharge  of the branch will be responsible for all the transactions that could be done  in respect of the said branch.  Even after assumption of charge as Branch Manager, the present Branch Manager has to comply with the impugned orders but he failed to do so. Therefore he will be the responsible for issuance of NBW against him for non-compliance of the impugned order. Hence there is no force in the contention of the petitioner .

8.        After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regarded to the contentions rose on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent, this Commission is of the view that the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.   This Commission answered Point No.1 accordingly against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

9.        In the result, the petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                    PRESIDENT               MEMBER

                                                                                                DATED : 15.06.2017.