Order  No. 02     Dated :  15.07.2019

          The case is taken up for admission hearing.

            The Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

            Complainant files the instant complaint against State Bank India, Entally Branch on the allegation of deficiency in service in a dispute of non-payment of Matured  Bonds Amount.

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant had obtained 30 Nos. of SBI Special Bearer Bond being Nos. A 142131 to 142146 dated  24.04.1981 and A142148 to 142161 dated 27.04.1981 having its face value of Rs. 10,000/- each and the total value of  the Bonds is Rs. 3,00,000/-. Those bearer bonds were matured on 30.05.1991 and the OP/Bank issued a bearer cheque of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the complainant on 30.05.1991 but said cheque was returned unpaid on 05.06.1991. Complainant again deposited the said cheque to their bank on 21.06.1991 but same was again unpaid. Several correspondences were made between the parties but in vain. Ultimately, in the month December, 2018 the complainant had been to the OP/Bank with a request to disburse the amount but in vain. The OP/Bank assured to release the payment but till date no payment was made. Finding no other alternative, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 27.12.2018 to the OP/Bank. Such notice was unattended. The cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 24.06.1991 when the bearer cheque was returned unpaid and is still continuing as the OP/Bank have failed and neglected to make necessary payment till the date of filing of the complaint.

            In our view, the cause of action for filing this complaint arose when the complainant came to know for the first time that the bearer cheque was returned unpaid on 24.06.1991. Neither serving of the legal notice upon the OP/Bank nor their response to the said notice gave any fresh cause of action to the complainant to file this complaint. The cause of action, which accrued the complainant before this Forum cannot be said to be a continuing cause of action and once they have came to know that the bearer cheque was returned unpaid, they were required to approach this Forum within 02 years of acquiring the said knowledge.

            In Haryana, Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K. Sood, MANU/SC/1683/2005 IV (2005) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to provision of section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 inter alia observed as under:

            “11. the section debars any Fora set up under the act, admitting a complaint unless the complaint is filed within 02 years from the date of which cause of action has arisen. ”

            The provision of section 24A of the act being mandatory and rather peremptory in nature, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint after expiry of prescribed period of limitation, unless the complainant files an appropriate application u/s (2) of the said section and satisfies it that they had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period of 02 years from the date of which the cause of action had arisen. The complainant did not choose to file any application under sub section (2) of section 24A seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint.

            Based on the above discussion, we are of the view that the complaint is barred under section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint after expiry of prescribed period of limitation.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint is not admitted as it has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.