IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM.

                                                  I.A.No.65/2022

                                  IN

                                                                                   C.C.No.190/2020

                                                                                      PRESENT

  SMT. S. K. SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S. SANDHYA  RANI, BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                 ORDER DATED:  31-05-2023.

BETWEEN

          Manager, State Bank of India,

          Kundara Branch, Kundara P.O.,

          Kollam.

(By Adv.Benoy Bal)                                                : Petitioner/Opposite party

AND

Devarajan, 61 years,

S/o Paramu Achari,

Kollan Vilakathu Charuvila Veedu,

Kundukulam, Kanjiramcode,

Mulavana P.O., Kollam                               : Counter Petitioner/Complainant

            (By Adv.S.K.Prakash Sathyanathan)

ORDER

S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT

The opposite party has filed this I.A questioning the maintainability of the complaint before this Commission on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and that the complaint is time-barred. Consequently, the issue of maintainability was heard as a preliminary issue.

The complainant alleges that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- in 2008 for constructing a house by providing his assets as security. The complainant diligently repaid the monthly instalments until August 2011 when he began defaulting due to unforeseen financial difficulties. The complainant claims that he was unaware that his assets had been sold in an auction without his knowledge until he arrived Kollam on 16-06-2018, from his working place in Mumbai. As a result, the complaint has been filed against the opposite party for deficiency in service and other related reliefs.

According to the opposite party, the complainant has approached this Commission after a lapse of more than six years from the date of auction sale by the opposite party Bank on 23-05-2014.  The complainant has not filed any petition to condone the delay either and hence the opposite prays for dismissal of the complaint in liminae on the ground of limitation.

We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party/petitioner extensively. Since the complainant/counter petitioner has been absent for several hearings and was not represented this time, his side was deemed heard.

The Point: The complainant admits in his complaint that he defaulted on repayments from August 2011 and received a notice dated 03-10-2011 from the bank demanding repayment. Due to unforeseen financial difficulties, the complainant was unable to make timely payments or clear the arrears. The complainant claims that there was no further communication from the bank after 03-10-2011 and he believed he could settle the loan once he reached his hometown, Kollam. It was only when he arrived in Kollam on 16-06-2018 that he discovered that his assets had been sold in an auction without his knowledge, prompting him to file this complaint.

The learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the complainant deliberately omitted relevant facts, such as the date of the auction sale and the subsequent delivery, in an attempt to overcome the limitation bar. The complainant's assertion that he arrived Kollam only in 2018 is an implausible story. Moreover, the complainant, who supposedly arrived in Kollam in 2018, filed this complaint on 03-09-2020, two years later. The learned counsel further submits that the complainant in order to overcome the bar of limitation has wilfully suppressed those relevant facts such as date of auction sale and consequential delivery etc. in the complaint.

That the pleading of the complainant that, after 03-10-2011, the complainant had come to his native place in Kollam only in 2018 is an unbelievable story and that the complainant who is alleged to have reached Kollam in 2018 has filed this complaint only on 18-08-2020, which is also after a lapse of two years. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the complainant has approached the Commission more than six years after the bank's auction sale, which occurred on 23-05-2014. Additionally, the complainant has not made any effort to justify the delay in filing the complaint. Consequently, the opposite party urges the dismissal of the complaint based on the grounds of limitation.

Upon a thorough review of the pleadings in the complaint, it is evident that the complainant has submitted this complaint well beyond the prescribed two-year time limit from the alleged date of the cause of action. The complainant himself acknowledges that he contacted the opposite party after a significant gap of 6 years. Furthermore, the complainant admits in the complaint that he considered settling the loan upon reaching Kollam, further demonstrating a lack of diligence and timeliness in loan repayment. Besides the same, the complainant has not sought to condone the delay through a petition.

As per Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complaint should be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This would mean two years from the day of detection of the deficiency in service or occurrence or defect in goods.

The complainant has failed to provide any acceptable and compelling reasons to justify such a substantial delay. After careful consideration, it is evident that the complaint is now time-barred and cannot proceed any further. In the absence of a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, we are inclined to uphold the contention of the opposite party. Consequently, we conclude that the complaint has been filed beyond the two-year period from the date of the  cause of action, as stipulated in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, we find that the complaint is time-barred and cannot be pursued.

Hence, the complaint is dismissed on grounds of being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

                                                                   MEMBER

                  Forwarded/by      Order                                                                                                     

                                             Senior superintendent