1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 287 of 2013 in which order dated 01.02.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Patiala (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 278 of 2012 was challenged.

 2.      The parties were arrayed before different Foras as per following details :

For the sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on 25.01.2016. Both the Parties also filed Written Arguments/Synopsis

3.       An IA No. 2349 of 2017 was filed way back in 06.02.2019 for substitution of respondent nos. 2 and 4 i.e. State Bank of Patiala, B.O. Samana, Tehsil Samana and State Bank of Patiala, H.O.  The Mall, Patiala with respondent no.1 – State Bank of India, Main Branch S.M.E. Branch, Sector-17, Through Assistant General Manager.  The said IA was allowed and amended memo of parties was filed by the Petitioner, which was taken on record

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that Complainant ( Public College Samana)  is an educational institution and is deducting the Provident Fund of its teaching and non-teaching staff.  The Complainant opened a Banking account with OP No.2 ( State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana) to transact different transactions including the deposit of Provident Fund of its employees for transferring the same to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh ( OP No.4).  As per the scheme of OP No.4  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), the complainant deducted and deposited Provident Fund of 8 of its employees amounting to Rs.81,747/- with OP No.3 ( State Branch of India, Sector-17, Chandigarh) for transferring the same to OP No.4 / RPFC as per directions of OP No.4.  The amount was deposited with OP No.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana in the prescribed proforma of challan on 28.09.1991 and its receipt was issued.  The deposit was duly intimated to OP No.4 / RPFC  and OP No.4 / RPFC vide its letter dated 20.09.2004 intimated the complainant while accepting the pension case of Lal Chand, amount of Rs.81,747/- deposited on 28.08.1991 was not traceable.  The then Principal of the Complainant / College wrote a written request to OP No.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana for issuance of the Bank certificate which was issued by OP No.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana and was forwarded to OP No.4  RPFC.  However, OP No.4 / RPFC returned the papers of family pension of Lal Chand with the plea that details of deposit of Rs.81,747/- is not traceable, which was replied. Even OP No.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana also supplied copy of relevant page of Ledger with regard to entry of Rs.81,747/- by complainant and its remittance to EPF Account on 03.10.1991. 

5.       OP No.4 / RPFC also wrote a letter to OP No.1  / State Bank of Patiala, Head Office The Mall, to intimate entry number of the amount and branch to which the amount was sent.  The said letter was replied vide letter dated 07.03.2006 giving full details and it was intimated that the amount was remitted vide entry no. 101337 dated 03.10.1991.  Therefore, OP No.4 / RPFC and other OPs were requested to confirm the deposit in the account of the Complainant. Even OP No.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana also wrote a letter alongwith entry number vide which the amount was remitted with OP No.3 / State Bank of India. Complainant wrote letter to OP No.1 / State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall to take necessary action.   A letter was also sent to OP No.3 / State Bank of India for confirming the credit of Rs.81,747/- but to no avail.  It is the case of the Complainant that OP No1 / State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, the Mall and OP No.3 / State Bank of India are deficient in their services as they failed to transfer the amount in the office of OP No.4 / RPFC.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated directed OP No.3 ( State Bank of India, Sector-17, Chandigarh Branch) to credit the amount of Rs.81,747/- remitted by OP No.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana in the account of OP No.4/ RPFC  alongwith interest w.e.f. 1.10.1991 and OP No.3 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  Being aggrieved, the OP No.3 / State Bank of India preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 08.06.2015 allowed the appeal of OP No.3 / State Bank of India and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint of the Complainant.  Therefore, the Complainant is before this Commission now in the present RP.

6.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 08.06.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. State Commission failed to consider that it is an admitted fact that amount of Rs.81,747/- was deposited by the Petitioner – College with Bank on 28.09.1991 and a receipt was issued.  Once the deposit of amount is confirmed, it is within the domain of the respondents to trace it and they are accountable for the same.

2. The then Principal of the Petitioner vide letter dated 09.09.1991 and 04.10.1991 intimated the respondent no.1 to make necessary changes.

3. In response to the letter dated 20.09.2004 issued by respondent no.4 / State Bank of Patiala ( now merged with respondent no.1- State Bank of India) / OP No.1 whereby deposit of Rs.81,747/- in the name of Sh. Lal Chand deposited on 28.08.1991 was not traceable. The Petitioner vide letter dated 11.10.2004 forwarded the certificate of pension issued by respondent no.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana (OP No.1)  (now merged with respondent no.1-State Bank of India) on 06.10.2004.

4. The Petitioner has  been regularly writing to the respondents for tracing the amount and further that cause of action is still continuing.

7.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

7.1     Learned counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 6, argued that Petitioner has been regularly corresponding with the respondents to reconcile their records and to complete the transaction as the same involved hard earned salary of the employees and even requested some alternate solution in the light of the fact that RPFO had destroyed all their records uptil 31.03.1999. Further, there has been sheer negligence on the part of respondent no.3 ( RPFC) ( OP No.4) in not maintaining the record i.e. the ledger regarding the deposit of the account of the EPF received from respondent no.2 State Bank of Patiala ( OP No.2) on behalf of the Petitioner.  Further, District Forum has correctly observed that it is hard to believe that ledger of the account of the EPF has been destroyed.  At the most, vouchers vide which the amounts are deposited could have been destroyed and not the ledgers.

7.2.    It is argued by learned counsel for respondent no.1-State Bank of India (OP No.3) that RP is not filed within the period of limitation and is time barred. It is argued that it is the case of the Petitioner and the Bank / Respondent no.2 (OP No.2) ( State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana) deposited Rs.81,747/- to transfer to respondent no.3 / RPFC (OP No.4) and that on 03.10.1991 a consolidated amount of Rs.83,577 was remitted to the account of respondent no.3 /RPFC with the respondent no.1 ( State Bank of India) (OP No.3)  and respondent no.3 (RPFC) ( OP No.4) advised the Petitioner that said deposit is not traceable., Further, from 2004 till 2010, the Petitioner never took up the matter  despite repeated communications from respondent no.3 /RPFC ( OP No.4) that any such remittance is not traceable.  The role of respondent no.1 / State Bank of India ( OP No.3)  in the transaction is very limited and if any remittance may have been received , the respondent no.1 / State Bank of India must have credited the said amount in the account so mentioned in the Money Transfer.

7.3.    It is further argued by learned counsel for respondent no.1 / State Bank of India ( OP No.3) that it is the case of respondent no.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana ( OP No.2)  that it has transferred the money in the account of EPF account no.01.  If such remittance was received, it must have been credited by the Bank in EPF Account No.01.  The Petitioner and respondent no.2 and 3 ( State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana and RPFC) ( OP No.2 and OP No.4)  are silent as to what EPF Account No.01 is.  The Petitioner has filed the copy of challan  under which it  has allegedly deposited Rs.81,747/- with respondent no.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana ( OP No.2) and bare perusal of the same shows that account number was left blank.  It is not justified to expect the Bank to maintain all the vouchers of remittance received by it from other banks by way of entries after 20 odd years and as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, the Bank is supposed to maintain the records only for a limited period and after lapse of 21 years when the complete records are not available with respondent no.1 ( OP No.3)  it cannot comment on contents of the Money Transfer or the directions given in the Money Transfer.    In absence of any record, respondent no.1 / State Bank of India (OP No.3) cannot comment as to whether any amount was received or not and it has submitted the complete details about the remittances from time to time with respondent no.3/ RPFC (OP No.4).

7.4.    Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 also argued that respondent no.1 ( OP No.3) being the banker to respondent no.3 ( OP No.4) has no privity of contract with the Petitioner and is, therefore, no responsible for the loss of any alleged amount.  The Petitioner is not the customer of respondent no.1 / State Bank of India ( OP No.3)  The Banker of the Petitioner is Respondent no.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana ( OP No.2).   Further, the alleged bank certificate was issued by respondent no.2 / State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office Samana ( OP No.2) in the year 2004 and the Petitioner despite having the alleged bank certificate delayed the filing of the complaint. 

7.5.    Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 4 ( OP No.2 and OP No.1)  (now State Bank of India) argued that original complaint is barred by time as Petitioner approached the District Forum after 21 years of cause of action having arisen.  Further, it is argued that Petitioner at the time of receiving the bank certificate dated 06.10.2004 was well aware that there was a dispute pertaining to the said transaction, however, Petitioner slept it for more than about 6 years and as such even otherwise the Complaint itself is barred by time.  Role of respondent no.2 and 4 ( OP No.2 and OP No.1) was limited only to the extent of receiving the amount from the Petitioner as a collecting bank and thereafter transferring the same to respondent no.1 ( OP No.3) which was diligently done by respondent no.2  ( OP No.2) and all relevant proof available at the time of enquiry including copy of the ledger book was also provided to the Petitioner on their request.  Also, no deficiency in service has been alleged or even observed by the Fora below against respondent no.2 and 4 ( OP No.2  and OP No.1).   It is also argued that even otherwise, nature of the allegations of the Petitioner is such which would require substantial evidence to be led in order to prove the case of the Petitioner and as such the case of Petitioner cannot be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and appropriate jurisdiction would be before the Civil Court.  Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors. 2011 (8) SCC 249

7.6.    Learned counsel for OP No.4 - RPFC argued that with regard to accounting of Rs.81,747/- the correspondence between the complainant and OP no. 1 and 2 started in the year 2004 but there was no letter in the name of OP No.3.  Further, the amount was deposited in the year 1991 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2011 after a gap of 21 y ears, which has not been observed by the District Forum.  It is also argued that on 01.03.2006, the Assistant P.F. Commissioner wrote a letter to General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Head Office regarding the confirmation of Provident Fund dues deposited by the Complainant.

8.       In this case, the District Forum has allowed the complaint with the direction to OP-3 i.e. State Bank of India, Chandigarh to credit the amount of Rs.81,747/- remitted by OP-2 i.e. State Bank of Patiala, Samana Branch (now State Bank of India) vide M.T.No.101337 on 3.10.1991 in the EPFC account of OP-4 with interest which would have accrued in due course of time w.e.f.  1.10.1991 till accounting for the same alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost.  OP-3 SBI, Chandigarh went in appeal before the State Commission. Vide impugned order dated 8.6.2015, the State Commission allowing the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint being barred by limitation. Hence, the complainant is now before us in the revision petition.   Learned counsel appearing for State Bank who now also represents OP Nos. 1 and 2 has drawn our attention to letter dated 1.3.2006 issued by State Bank of Patiala, Samana (OP No.2) R-2 addressed to OP No.4 (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner) (at page 61 of additional documents filed by the petitioner) in which they have stated that they have remitted the said amount of Rs.81,747/- to the State Bank of Chandigarh (OP No.3) on 3.10.1991. However, counsel states that as the records of State Bank of Chandigarh have been destroyed/not available, he is not in a position to categorically states whether the said amount received from State Bank of Patiala was remitted to Provident Fund Commission or not, if yes, on which date and through which mode. Hence, there is no documents/evidence on record to show that State Bank of India (OP No.3) has remitted the amount of Rs.81,747/- to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (OP No.4), which they received from State Bank of Patiala on 3.10.1991.

9.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission,  other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  The main issue for consideration in the present case is whether the complaint in question was time barred or the complainant has a continuing cause of action.  In this regard, observations of the State Commission are reproduced below :

11. In the appeal it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that with regard to accounting of RS. 81,747/- the correspondence between the complainant and OP Nos. 1 & 2 started in the year 2004 but there was no letter in the name of Op No. 3 whereas in the year 2010 respondent No. 1/complainant was clearly acknowledge that OP No. 3 did not receive the remittance from OP No. 2. However, before taking the appeal on merits, it was pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the Forum had factually made a mockery of Section 24A of the Act, which prescribes a limitation period to file the complaint as two years from the date of cause of action. The amount was deposited in the year 1991 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2011 after a gap of 21 years whereas the learned District Forum has not touched this point. In case we go through the order passed by the learned District Forum, after referring to some of the documents placed on the record by the parties, the liability of Op No. 3 has been fixed that OP No. 3 has failed to further transfer the amount to Op No. 4 but plea of limitation as taken by the Ops in their written replies have not been considered by the District Forum when the District Forum was required to adjudicate this point before discussing the merits of the case. In case we go through the complaint, in para No. 6 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the complainant had informed OP No. 4 vide letter No. 6314 dated 9.9.1991 regarding deposit of this amount whereas OP No. 4 vide letter No. 12184/5 dated 20.9.2004 informed that deposit dated 28.8.1991 was not traceable and OP No. 2 had also issued the certificate with regard to forwarding the amount to OP No. 3 on 6.10.2004. Even on 7.3.2006 it was replied that amount was remitted with entry No. 101337 dated 3.10.1991, therefore, at the most, the cause of action was complete as on 7.3.2006. Further it has been mentioned by the complainant that he further made correspondence with OP No. 4 vide various letters. However, once the complainant had come to know in the year 2006 that the amount was not remitted with their account with OP No. 4 then they had the cause of action to file the complaint within a period of two years but it was not filed. It was filed in the year 2012, which is clearly time barred and that the complainant had not attached any application to condone the delay, if any, in filing the complaint. The necessary correspondence is on the record. It was only argued by the counsel for the appellant that the complaint filed by the complainant was clearly time barred and further correspondence, if any, after the cause of action had arisen will not extend the period of limitation. To support this preposition, he has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) “State Bank of India versus B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)”. In that case, the bank was to return the documents, if not honoured by the Drawee by 7.6.1994, therefore, cause of action accrued to the complainant on 7.6.1994 when it did not receive the demand draft for Rs. 2,47,154/- nor received the documents. Further correspondence, if any, will not extend the period of limitation. Whereas the counsel for respondent No. 1/complainant has stated that he had been clarifying the position from one quarter to another and ultimately, when it was cleared then he had filed the complaint and to support this contention, cited the judgments of the  Hon’ble National Commissions 2011(1) CLT 3 “Shailesh A. Shah (Dr.) versus Khodabhai Ganeshdas Patel”. In that case, First operation conducted by the appellant at his clinic on 17.7.1995 and second operation conducted at Civil Hospital on 10.8.2005 and the respondent was under treatment of appellant as indoor patient in the said hospital till 18.9.1995. State Commission held the cause of action was continuing one and further in 2010(3) CLT 595 “Advent Computer Services Ltd. versus V.R. Kannan & Ors.”. In that case, several letters were written by the respondent for transfer of shares since September, 1997 till 4.3.2000. Complaint was filed in the year 2000 itself held to be within time as the grievance was continuing one. But these judgments will not help the complainant in any manner because the complaint itself reveals that Op No. 4 vide its letter dated 20.9.2004 intimated the complainant while settling the pension case of Lal Chand that amount of Rs. 81,747/- alleged to be deposited on 28.8.1991 was not traceable. Even certificate for remitting this amount with Op No. 3 was issued by OP No. 2 on 7.3.2006. The perusal of the document show that no letter was written to OP No. 3, therefore, the final cause of action at the most can be taken in the year 2006 and if there was any further correspondence made by the complainant with OP Nos. 2 & 4 will not extend the period of limitation, therefore, the complaint so filed by the complainant was barred by limitation. Once the complaint was barred by limitation, then further findings on merits were not required.

 12. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal filed by the appellant. The order of the learned District Forum is set aside. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed being barred by limitation.

10.     Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 4 SCC 103 while dealing with the issue of continuing cause of action / limitation, has observed as follows :

Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues. A continuing wrong occurs when a party continuously breaches an obligation imposed by law or agreement.

11. The crux of the appeal revolves around the maintainability of the complaint and whether it is barred by limitation. Ncdrc held [Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1711] that the cause of action arose when the municipal authorities asked the appellant to pay higher charges in the first instance and thus, a complaint should have been filed within two years of the accrual of the cause of action. The appellant however, has argued that the cause of action is of a continuing nature, since members of the appellant have continued paying higher charges as the respondent failed to provide the occupancy certificate.

12. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for the period of limitation period for lodging a complaint. A complaint to a consumer forum has to be filed within two years of the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the instant case, the appellant has submitted that since the cause of action is founded on a continuing wrong, the complaint is within limitation.

13. Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [ “22. Continuing breaches and torts.—In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues.”] provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues. This Court in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan [Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 476 : AIR 1959 SC 798] elaborated on when a continuous cause of action arises.

xxx

16. The Court further provided illustrations of continuous wrongs: (Suresh Seth case [CWT v. Suresh Seth, (1981) 2 SCC 790 : 1981 SCC (Tax) 168], SCC p. 800, para 17)

“17. The true principle appears to be that where the wrong complained of is the omission to perform a positive duty requiring a person to do a certain act the test to determine whether such a wrong is a continuing one is whether the duty in question is one which requires him to continue to do that act. Breach of a covenant to keep the premises in good repair, breach of a continuing guarantee, obstruction to a right of way, obstruction to the right of a person to the unobstructed flow of water, refusal by a man to maintain his wife and children whom he is bound to maintain under law and the carrying on of mining operations or the running of a factory without complying with the measures intended for the safety and well-being of workmen may be illustrations of continuing breaches or wrongs giving rise to civil or criminal liability, as the case may be, de die in diem.”

xxx

18. A continuing wrong occurs when a party continuously breaches an obligation imposed by law or agreement. Section 3 of the MOFA imposes certain general obligations on a promoter. These obligations inter alia include making disclosures on the nature of title to the land, encumbrances on the land, fixtures, fittings and amenities to be provided, and to not grant possession of a flat until a completion certificate is given by the local authority. The responsibility to obtain the occupancy certificate from the local authority has also been imposed under the agreement to sell between the members of the appellant and the respondent on the latter.

xxx

11.       As regards observations of State Commission that no application was filed seeking the condonation of delay (assuming there was a delay, which is condonable by the Commission (on showing sufficient cause), as was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sesh Nath Singh v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd.”, (2021) 7 SCC 313, delay can be condoned without formal application, filing of application is not mandatory for seeking condonation of delay. Extract of relevant paras of the said judgement is reproduced below:

61. …Although, it is the general practice to make a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the court or tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant applicant to approach the court/tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the court/tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application.

62. A plain reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it amply clear that, it is not mandatory to file an application in writing before relief can be granted under the said section. Had such an application been mandatory, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have expressly provided so. Section 5 would then have read that the court might condone delay beyond the time prescribed by limitation for filing an application or appeal, if on consideration of the application of the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, for condonation of delay, the court is satisfied that the appellant applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Alternatively, a proviso or an Explanation would have been added to Section 5, requiring the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, to make an application for condonation of delay

12.     After giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the considered view that State Commission went wrong in allowing the appeal, setting aside the orders of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint on the grounds of limitation.  In the given facts and circumstances of the case, especially considering Annexure C-21 letter dated 07.03.2006 from State Bank of Patiala Samana ( OP No.2) addressed to EPFC ( OP No.4) in which they have  confirmed that the said amount of Rs.81,747/-   was    remitted   to  SBI   Chandigarh  (OP No.3)  on  03.10.1991 ( consolidated amount of Rs.83,577/- for one week), copy of ledger evidencing such remittance, which was also sent and inability of SBI to state categorically whether the said amount was remitted to EPFC or not, if yes, on which date and through which mode and other correspondence which took place between the parties and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samruddhi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ( supra ), the Petitioner – Complainant has a continuous cause of action.  We agree with State Commission that District Forum should have addressed the contentions of OPs of complaint being time barred, which was not done on merits.  Even assuming there is delay in filing the complaint, State Commission has also stated that delay is of about 6 years and not 21 years as alleged.  In the given facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sesh Nath Singh (supra ), even if there is some delay in filing the complaint, the same can be condoned and is hereby condoned.   District Forum has given a well reasoned order.  In view of the foregoing, order of the State Commission is set aside and order of the District Forum is restored.  RP is allowed accordingly.

13.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.