Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties with their grievance that the Opposite parties were running a Finance business under the name of Sri Surya Finance and Investments (Regd.) at Mysore in which 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are the Managing Partners, 3rd Opposite party is the Manager, 4 to 9th Opposite parties are the Directors, and that 10th Opposite party is the Institution. That 1st & 2nd Opposite parties being the Managing Partners of the 10th Opposite party received the amounts from them towards fixed deposits and issued receipts of different dates, agreeing to pay interest at 15% p.a. That one Moodalagiriyaiah the husband of the 1st Complainant and father of others was collecting interest on their behalf. That after is death when they contacted the Opposite parties to pay their fixed deposits value went on post phoning and despite issue of legal notice dated 25.11.2006 they failed to repay the fixed deposits and thereby have caused deficiency in their service and thus they have become liable to pay the fixed deposit receipt value of Rs.3,12,000/- and thereby have prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to pay them Rs.3,12,000/-. <br /> 2. The Complainants have got their Complaint dismissed against the 3rd Opposite party. The 2nd & 6th Opposite parties have filed their versions, then 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th Opposite parties have filed their memo adopting the version of 2nd Opposite party, 7th Opposite party who remained absent after service of notice is set exparte.<br /> 3. The 2nd Opposite party in her version has contended that the Complainant is not maintainable, that the Surya Finance & Investments has been ordered to be dissolved from 30.09.1996 in a suit No.O.S.52/1996 on 06.01.2006 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Hunsur, therefore his liability ceased to exist. She further denying deficiency in her service stated that the claim of the Complainants is barred by limitation and has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> 4. In the course of enquiry, the 2nd Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence for himself and on behalf of others by reiterating what they have alleged in the Complaint. 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th Opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what has been stated by the 2nd Opposite party in her version. The Complainants have produced fixed deposit receipts and a copy of the legal notice dated 25.11.2006. The Opposite parties have produced a copy of the judgment passed in OS 52/1996, which came to be decreed dissolving the partnership concern. Heard the counsel for the Complainants, Opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complaint is barred by limitation?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainants prove that the Opposite parties without honouring the fixed deposit receipts by paying their matured value have caused deficiency in their service?<br /> 3. Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for?<br /> 4. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 & 3 : Do not arise for consideration.<br /> Point no.4 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The Complainants in their Complaint are not specific as to when they invested their money in fixed deposits with 10th Opposite party the Finance Institution in which the other Opposite parties are said to be Managing Partners and Directors. The Complainants have only in their Complaint referred to a legal notice got issued by them to the Opposite parties on 25.11.2006 and stated that being the legal notice calling upon the Opposite parties to pay the amount and that has given raise to the cause of action and therefore have prayed for the relief.<br /> 8. The Opposite parties besides denying their liability on the ground that the 10th Opposite party Finance Institution came to be dissolved by judgment and decree passed in OS 52/1996 dated 06.01.2006 have further contended that the Complaint is barred by limitation.<br /> 9. On perusal of the affidavits filed by the Complainants and the Opposite parties they have taken the same contention as narrated by them in their respective Complaint and versions. The counsel representing the Complainants without seriously disputing the date of alleged investment of money in the fixed deposits and a due dates mentioned on the certificates argued that the claim of the Complainants appears to be barred by limitation, but those amounts shown in the fixed deposit receipts become payable on demand and therefore contended by issuing a legal notice on 25.11.2006, the Complainants have demanded the payment of fixed deposits value with interest and that dates to be taken as the date of cause of action for the purpose of calculation of limitation and therefore from that date the Complaint is in time and therefore has prayed for allowing the Complaint as prayed for. Whereas, the counsel appearing for the Opposite parties disputing the arguments of the counsel for the Complainants submitted that the fixed deposit receipts are concocted shown to had been issued somewhere in the year 1995 till 1999 and they became payable somewhere in the year 1998, 1999 and 2002 and dates on which fixed deposits became payable is the date from which limitations starts and therefore argued that the Complaints are barred by limitation and Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The counsel appearing for 2nd Opposite party in support of his arguments relied on two decisions reported in I (1992) CPJ page 437 (V-45 C 66)<br /> 10. On perusal of the fixed deposit receipts produced by the Complainants reveal that one fixed deposit receipt was issued on 02.07.1999 for Rs.20,000/- and became due on 02.07.2002, another receipt was issued on 30.10.1999 for Rs.10,000/- and became due on 30.10.2002, the 3rd receipt was issued on 22.11.1996 for Rs.20,000/- and payable on 22.11.1999, the 4th receipt is of 31.03.1995 for Rs.20,000/- payable on 31.03.1998, the 5th receipt is of Rs.20,000/- issued on 01.09.1997 payable on 01.09.2000, the 6th receipt is of 22.11.1996 for Rs.20,000/- payable on 22.11.1999 and last one is of Rs.20,000/- dated 07.06.1999 payable on 07.06.2002. Therefore, it is manifest that these amounts became payable long back somewhere in the year 1998 till 02.07.2002. In none of these fixed deposit receipts, we find that the amounts mentioned therein with interest are payable on demand, therefore the receipts should be read as they become payable on the date they are shown to be due. Hence, we find no merits in the arguments of the counsel for the Complainants and those amounts are payable on demand. The Complainants even after those receipts become due they appears to had slept over right from 1998 till they got issued a legal notice on 25.11.2006. Therefore, their inaction and silence cannot be condoned and it cannot be said that on the issue of legal notice it has conferred on them the cause of action to hold that this Complaint is in time. Section 24(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides period of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen to file a Complaint. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the counsel for the 2nd Opposite party, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-<br /> “that it was sufficient to establish that the amount due at the foot of the fixed deposit receipt became due and payable on the due date mentioned therein and there is no question of the amount being payable at any time thereafter, on demand being made in that behalf by the creditor”.<br /> <br /> Further held that the limitations for its recovery therefore started from the due date namely “31.07.1940 and not from 17.05.1940 the date of alleged demand”. Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in a decision reported in II (2007) CPJ page – 144 has held as under:-<br /> <br /> “Insured vehicle met with an accident on 22.04.1994 claim was repudiated by the Opposite party on 06.10.1994 Complaint filed only in the year 1999 no material on record indicating action taken for settlement for few long years limitation period be counted from the date of cause of action – claim barred by limitation”. <br /> <br /> Further, it could be seen that the Complainants have produced the fixed deposit receipts which is in the name of Y.K.Mudalagiriyaiah the husband of the 1st Complainant which became due on 22.11.1999 and that Y.K.Mudalagiriyaiah during his life time did not bother to claim the fixed deposit due in his name. Therefore, having regard to the decisions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of the Complainants are hopelessly barred by limitation and they have not placed any materials for condonation of delay. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the Complainants that legal notice conferred on them the cause of action is imaginary and cannot be accepted. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. With this, we find no need to proceed on merits of the Complaint to answer the other points. Hence, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />