24.07.2015

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Revision u/s 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the Order No. 12 dated 25.9.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, in HDF Case No. 430 of 2013, rejecting the petition filed by the OP No. 1 challenging the maintainability of the Complaint on the ground of the same being barred by limitation of time.

          Facts of the case, as emerging from the materials on records, are, in short, that the Respondents/Complainants invested Rs. 1,00,000/-, by Cheque No. 314259 in favour of ‘Standard Chartered Classic’, in mutual fund of the Revisionists/OPs as alleged and the said cheque was cleared on 8.11.2007.  Thereafter, till January, 2011 the Respondents/Complainants received neither any document relating to the said mutual fund nor any financial benefits from the said investment in the mutual fund.  At this juncture, when the Respondents/Complainants approached for redressal the OP No. 2 being Standard Chartered Mutual Fund Authority, the OP No. 2 denied, initially in September, 2012 and subsequently in November, 2013, any such investment with them by the Respondents/Complainants.  Thus, having got no redressal from the OP No. 2 the Complainants/Respondents moved the Ld. District Forum with a complaint.  During the pendency of the proceedings of the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum the Revisionist/OP No. 1 filed a petition dated 13.3.2014 before the Ld. District Forum challenging the maintainability of the  complaint on the ground of the same being barred by limitation as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was rejected by the Ld. District Forum as mentioned at the outset.  Being aggrieved by such order of rejection the OP No. 1 has preferred the instant Revision Petition.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist/OP No. 1 in the very beginning submits that the negotiation, if any, for investment in the mutual fund in question was made with the OP No. 2-Mutual Fund Authority and not with the Revisionist/OP No. 1-Bank  which is a legal entity distinct and separate from the OP No. 2-Mutual Fund Authority and that as the Respondents/Complainants did not hire any service from the Revisionist/OP No. 1-Bank, there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP No. 1-Bank.

The Ld. Advocate also submits that the limitation is to be counted from the date when the cheque related to the investment in the said mutual fund was cleared from the account of the Respondents/Complainants, i.e. from 8.11.2007 (Running Page-10 of the Memo of Appeal), but not from the date of approaching the OP No. 2-Mutual Fund Authority.

          It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that as the Complaint was filed on 9.12.2013 instead of 7.11.2009 being the date of limitation of two years from the date of clearance of the cheque in question, the Complaint Case was not filed within two years from the date of clearing of the cheque in question and hence, the case is barred by limitation as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the submission so advanced the impugned order should be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed, it being beyond the jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum and also being barred by limitation as prescribed under the said Act.

          None appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Complainants in spite of due service of Notices as evident from the Order dated 20.3.2015 of this Commission.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Proforma Respondent No. 3/OP No. 3 submits that the Respondent No.3/OP No. 3 has nothing to say excepting clearing of the cheque in question on 8.11.2007.

          We have heard both the sides, considered the submissions made and perused the materials on records.

          The Application Form of the Mutual Fund concerned, bearing No. 4757268, demonstrates that the contract for investment in the mutual fund in question was made with the OP No. 2 being Standard Chartered Mutual Fund.

          It is also an admitted fact that the clearance of the cheque was done on 08.11.2007.  Prima facie, therefore, the Complainant is the bonafide hirer of services from the OP No. 2, the Mutual Fund Authority.  The question as to whether or not the OP No. 1os a separate and distinct legal entity and completely separate from the OP No. 2, is a mixed question of law and fact and it should be decided after evidence is adduced by the parties.

          Secondly, as to the point of limitation, it is the specific contention of the Complainant that after making payment, the Complainant did neither get any document nor any beneficial return from the Mutual Fund Authority.  Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the cause of action is continuing one.  No illegality or material irregularity was committed by the Ld. District Forum in passing the impugned order.

          The Revision Petition is dismissed.