Karnataka

Mysore

CC/507/2015

Sathvic - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri.Nanjundaraj Urs, Chanakya Finance Corporation (Regd) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.S.Shivaprakash

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.507/2015

 

DATED ON THIS THE 30^th July 2015

 

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

 

 

COMPLAINANT/S	:	Sathvic, S/o Vivek urs, 14 years, No.875/4, Vanivilasa Road, K.R.Mohalla, Mysuru. Rep. by Natural guardian grand father M.C.Shamasunder, S/o Cheluve Urs, 66 years.           (Sri D.S.S. Advocate)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTY/S	:	Chanakya Finance Corporation (Regd.), No.381, 2nd Cross, Benkinawab Street, Mandimohalla, Mysuru-570001. Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Nanjundaraj Urs.

   

 

 

 

 

ORDER ON I.A. No.I

 

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY.

President,

 

        This application is filed under section 24 (A) C.P.Act for condoning the delay in filing the complaint.

        The application is supported by the affidavit of complainant stating that the opposite party, Managing Partner being the close relative postpone the matter in payment of the amount shown in the bond.  Thereby, the complainant was waiting that the opposite party may pay the amount as such there is delay in filing this complaint.  After hearing the advocate for complainant, this I.A.No.I is set down for orders.

 

        The points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as under :-

 

1. Whether the complainant has shown sufficient cause / reasons for condoning the delay?
2. To what order?

Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the Negative.

Point No.2:- As per the final order.

 

REASONS

Point No.1:- During the arguments, counsel representing the complainant submits that the present complainant has deposited a sum of `2,00,000/- on 27.03.2003 with opposite party-Finance Corporation.  The date of maturity of the said bond is 27.03.2005.  So from 27.03.2005, the limitation starts and the present complainant ought to have filed the complaint within 2 years i.e. on or before 27.03.2007 as per the provision of Section 24(A)(1) C.P.Act.  Thereby, the present complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant wanted to explain why there is inordinate delay of 10 years 3 months in filing this complaint before this Forum.  It is stated that the Nanjundarraj Urs i.e. the person who is managing the affairs of Chanakya Finance Corporation is the close relative of the present complainant.  The entire family of the complainant believed the transaction of the opposite party – Nanjundaraj Urs and deposited the amount in question.  It is learnt by the complainant after maturity, the customers were complaining that the said opposite party committed fraud while giving the deposited amount after maturity period.  Subsequently, even the complainant came to know that the partners of the opposite party were sent to jail for having committed fraudulent act.  This process is being carried out in several years and in the meantime, the complainant met the said Nanjundaraj Urs, Managing Partner of opposite party Corporation,  The opposite party has assured to clear the amount after the litigation is over.  Believing his version, the present complainant has not filed the same within the period of limitation.

The complainant waited long time with the hope of settlement with interest and came to know that the opposite party is not in a position to settle the claim.  The complainant is kept under darkness with false assurance by the Managing Partner as such there is delay in filing the complaint and it is not intentional one and due to bonafide reasons.  Thereby, the complainant has sought for condoning the delay. 

 

The entire allegations are made against the Managing Partner of the opposite party Corporation stating that Managing Partner being the close relative assured with complainant.  Thereby the complainant not taken any steps to file the complaint and waited for several years.  But, such explanation cannot be accepted and such explanation cannot be termed as sufficient reasons or cause for delay in filing the proceedings. The present complainant has slept over the matter for more than 10 years and 3 months, he is not diligent and the explanation submitted in the affidavit is not acceptable explanation and there are no letter correspondence with the Managing Director even after lapse of several years from the date on which bond was submitted for refund. The law will come to the aid the person who is diligent and not indifferent. Under these circumstances, the reasons for condoning the delay as stated by the complainant cannot be accepted and accordingly, the present claim made by the complainant in this complaint is barred by time.  The Forum cannot proceed with the main matter as the complaint is barred by limitation.  Hence, the Point No.1 answered in the negative.

 

Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on Point No.1, the complaint is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation.    Hence, we pass the following order:-

 

ORDER

1. The I.A.No.1 is filed under section 24 (A) of C.P.Act is hereby dismissed, in the result the complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Return the original documents and also the postal cover to the complainant.
3. Give a copy of this order as per Rules.