JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      One of the duties casts upon this Commission established under the Consumer Protection Act, is to approach the problem more gingerly and realistically whenever it is confronted with the question of time barred cases under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Consumer Court has to be empirical and practical in adjudicating this point.  This Commission cannot waft aside the delay of 14 years as venial.  Now the facts of this case deserve a look.

2.      M/s Matrumal Dhannalal Oil Mill, the complainant, is a partnership firm having its registered office situated at Hathras, U.P.  The complainant was maintaining a current account No. 315 since the year 1995-96 with the State Bank of India, Mandi Samiti, Hathras, U.P.,opposite party No.3.  The opposite party No. 2 is the main Branch of State Bank of India at Hathras, U.P. The State Bank of India’s head office is situated at State Bank Bhawan, Mumbai, which is arrayed as opposite party No. 1.

3.      In the year 2000, the complainant was planning to establish its Depot at Patna (Bihar).  The complainant received a telephonic call from one Mr. Vijay Prasad who described himself as proprietor of M/s Pawan Trading Co., Chitkohra Bazar, Patna (Bihar) and offered to become the consignment agent of the complainant by making advance payment as deposit against goods dispatched.  The complainant also received a letter dated 12.6.2000 from said Mr. Vijay Prasad on its printed letter-head alongwith four drafts of Rs.85,500/- each in favour of the complainant payable at State Bank of India, main Branch, Hathras/Opposite party No. 2.  The details of above said draft are described as follows:

Copy of the letter dated 12.6.2000 has been annexed as annexure A-4.  The complainant deposited all these drafts with the opposite party No. 3.  After the clearance of the said drafts, the complainant dispatched a consignment of 752 Tins, each containing 15 kms. Radha Krishna Brand Mustard Oil to said buyer on 14.6.2000.  The total cost of the consignment was Rs.3,46,400/-.  The consignment was duly received by M/s Pawan Trading Co.  Copies of dispatch papers and copy of G.R. have been placed on record as Annexure A-5 and A-6, respectively.

4.      On 17-18^th June, 2000, again the complainant received a telephonic call from said Mr. Vijay Prasad and received a letter dated 19.6.2000, wherein he requested for one more consignment and following four drafts in the sum of Rs.92,000/- each in favour of the complainant payable at opposite party No. 2 were sent.  The details of these drafts run as follows:

Copy of the letter dated 19.6.2000 was annexed with the complaint as Annexure A-7.  Consequently, the complainant sent another consignment of 752 tins each containing 15 kg. mustard oil valuing at  Rs.3,74,220/- on 21.6.2000.  Copies of dispatch paper and copy of G.R. are annexed with the complaint as Annexure A-8 and Annexure A-9, respectively.  Those drafts were deposited in the current account and the amount of drafts was again credited by the opposite parties in the account of the complainant.  The truck driver of the second consignment arrived at Patna on 26/27.6.2000 and tried to trace out said Mr. Vijay Prased but failed to trace him out.  He contacted the complainant, who sensed some foul-play and directed the driver to come back to Hathras alongwith the consignment, which was duly returned to the complainant.  M/s Amar Golden Transport Company charged Rs.21,260/- from the complainant on account of returning the second consignment to Hathras.  Copy of letter/receipt sent by M/s Amar Golden Transport Company is placed on record as Annexure A-10.  The complainant sent a letter dated 28.6.2000 to opposite party No. 3 informing it about the said situation and requested to debit the complainant’s account for Rs.7,10,000/-, the amount of all the aforesaid eight drafts till genuineness of all the drafts were confirmed.   Accordingly, opposite party No. 3 debited complainant’s account for Rs.7,10,000/- vide letter dated 26.6.2000 itself.  Copy of the letter written by the complainant has been placed on record as Annexure A-11.   Copy of the letter written by opposite party No. 3 alonwith its true typed copy is annexed as annexure A-12.

5.      The complainant also brought these facts to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Police, Hathras vide annexrue A-13.  It transpired that all these eight drafts belonged to the series of those drafts, which were stolen from the Branch of State Bank of India at Rajgir, Bihar.  FIR was registered on the letters written by the complainant, copies of letters are placed on record as Annexure A-14 and annexure 15.  The police registered an FIR under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. of Police Station Kotwali, Hathras against said Mr. Pawan Trading Company and the Manager of the State Bank of India, Hathras i.e. opposite party on the complaints of the complainant.  Letter dated 1.7.2000 is also annexed on record.  Certified copy of the FIR was placed on record as Annexure A-17.  On 15.7.2000, the complainant issued a legal notice through its counsel to opposite party No. 3 to pay the amount of loss sustained by the complainant alongwith compensation for causing mental torture, agony and harassment to the complainant, copy of notice is annexed as Annexure A-19.  The Chief Manager, Shri K. S. Pardesi of opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 22.7.2000 against the complainant and others before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, which resulted in registration of FIR and a copy of FIR is placed on record as Ex. A-20.  The statement of K. S. Pardeshi was recorded wherein he stated:

                                    “……The written information regarding stealing of said forged drafts was already available with all branches of State Bank of India, I AM PRODUCING PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAME.  Hurriedness and negligence of our accountant Sh. S. K. Sharma of our Branch is reason in this incident, for inquiry of which, Sh. J.P.N. Mishra, Chief Manager, General Banking Zone-2, Sanjay Palace, Agra came on 05.07.2000.  Inquiry is still pending.  This first information Report has been lodged by us as per the orders of senior officers due to sending a notice by M.D. Oil Mill to the Bank.  You may inquire.”

            The statement of Sudhir Kumar, the then accountant of opposite party No. 2 was recorded on 29.7.2000 wherein he stated

“…. Information regarding stealing of forged drafts was available with the bank since January, 2000…..”

            Its copy was placed on record as Ex. A-21.

6.      It is alleged that the opposite parties not only lodged aforesaid false FIR against the complainant but they adopted a revengeful attitude by publishing their aforesaid complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 22.7.2000 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/120B I.P.C. in the Hindi Edition of Dainik Lalsa dated 1.8.2000 to be circulated in Hathras, U.P., copy of which is attached as Annexure A-23.  It is claimed that after conducting a thorough inquiry, the investigating officer closed the investigation of case titled as Ashwini vs. Pawan and others by filing Final Report/untraced Report dated 22.8.2000.  The investigating officer also closed the investigation of the crime case No. 212-A/2000 titled as K. S. Pardeshi vs. Ashwini and others by filing final report No. 50-A dated 22.8.2000 in the concerned court alongwith crime dismissal report and challan report under Section 182 I.P.C. against the then chief Manager, Shri K. S. Pardeshi.  Those reports were accepted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras on 23.11.2013 i.e. after passing a period of more than 14 years.  Copies thereof are annexed as A-29 and A-30.  A complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. dated 22.8.2000 was never challenged by the opposite parties.

7.      It is stated that all these facts and circumstances smack of negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,13,10,350/-.  He has claimed the following reliefs in this complaint filed before this Commission on 7.8.2014:

“A. to pay Rs.3,67,660/- (total of Rs.3,46,400/- as value of first consignment dispatched on 14.06.2000 and Rs.21,260/- paid by the complainant to M/s Amr Golden Transport on 03.07.2000) to the complainant.

B. to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensatioin for causing sever shock, depression, acute humiliation, hardship, harassment, difficulties, mental trauma, agony and injury to reputation in three folds to the complainant for a long period of 13 years.

C. to pay Rs.12,42,690/- as interest on Rs.3,67,660/- for 169 months from 03.07.00 to 02.08.14 @24% per annum along-with pendentilite and future interest @24% per annum from the date of institution of the present complaint till its actual realization.

D. to pay Rs.20,00,000/- as punitive damages as provided u/s 14 (1)(d)(proviso) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of peculiar circumstances of the present case.

E. to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as cost of litigation and other incidental charges.

F.  Not to repeat unfair & unwarranted practice which has been adopted by the opposite parties in the present case.

Pass such other or further order(s)/directions as may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the ends of justice.

8.        We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the time of admission of this case.  He vehemently argued that complainant’s case is within time.  In this context, he has invited our attention towards the final report i.e. antim report, dated 22.8.2000 wherein it is stated that no case was made out in the complaint filed by Shri K. S. Pardesi.  Same is the position of the final report in case of Ashwini Kumar Lohia vs. Pawan Kumar Trading Company, Patna.           Learned counsel for the complainant has also invited our attention towards Annexure A-29 and A-30 regarding both these cases.  In both these cases, the complainants, Shri K. S. Pardesi, Chief Manager and Shri Ashwini Kumar Lohia, the partner of the complainant/company did not appear before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to file any protest to the final report.  Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the present case is within time because the time will start from the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.11.2013.  He vehemently argued that it is settled law that when the criminal case is pending, the pendency of the criminal case extends the time of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9.      In order to buttress his case, he has cited an authority of this Commission reported in Uma Shankar Bhatt vs. Punjab & Siund Bank & Ors. I(2008) CPJ 31 (NC).  In the cited case, the cause of action had arisen in the year 1997. The complainant requested the Bank to refund the amount fraudulently transferred from his account.  The complainant’s letter was rejected by bank in the year 2001.  The complainant filed the case in the year 2002.  Criminal case remained pending against Branch Manager of the Bank.  In those peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the complaint was condoned in that case.

10.    We are of the considered view that this far-fetched authority has no application to this case.  To top it all, no criminal case was pending.  As a matter of fact, no criminal case was filed at all.  It was in the knowledge of the complainant that the closure statement had been prepared by the investigating officer as back as on 22.8.2000.  No action was taken between 22.8.2000 to 23.11.2013.  Moreover, it is noteworthy that when the Magistrate called the complainant to make a protest against the report, he did not take the trouble to appear before the C.J.M.  It was never explained what has been the fate of complaint filed under Section 182 Cr.P.C.  There is inordinate delay of 14 years in filing this case.  It is well settled that the settled rights of the parties could not be disturbed after a lapse of so much time.

11.     In a recent authority, the Supreme Court in Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SLP No. 9307 of 2013 decided on 8.3.2013 was pleased to observe:

“We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.  In our opinion, the reasons assigned by the State Commission and the National Commission for holding that the complaint was barred by time are correct.  It is not in dispute that the claim made by the petitioner was repudiated by the respondent vide communication dated 30.10.2002 and the complaint was filed on 25.5.2006 i.e. after three years and five months of repudiation of the claim.  Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the complaint was barred by time.  This view finds support from the judgment of this Court in HUDA vs. B. K. Sood (2006) 1 SCC 164, SBI vs. B. S. Agricultural Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121, Kandimalla Raghavaiah vs. National Insurance Company (200) 7 SCC 768 and V. N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes (2011) 1 SCC 53.

             In the result, we find that the case is hopelessly barred by time.  Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed.