1. STATE BANK OF INDIARepresented by its Chief Manager Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, 2nd Cross, 1st Stage, Peenya Industrial Estate,Bangalore - 560058Karnataka
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
IN PERSON
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 19 Aug 2010
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Section 24 A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and consequently the complaint bearing No. 167 of 2009 filed by him before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissioin, Bangalore vide order dated 4.2.2010, the original complainant has filed the present appeal. The State Commission has made the observations and given reasons for dismissing the application of condonation of delay and then the complaint as under:- The complainant has filed an application under Section 24 A (2) of the C.P. Act. The complainant himself has stated that the cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant and against the OP on 20.7.1985, the day on which the complainant was asked to appear before the Court to answer the claim in S.No. 10130/1985 filed by the opposite party. It seems that the complainant was not succeeded and thereafter in the subsequent years till filing of the present complaint before this Commission he exhausted all the remedies before other judicial authorities including the Supreme Court of India. The complainant has taken the time spent by him between 20.7.1985 till 26.8.2008 at various levels of courts for prosecuting the case which in our opinion does not help him in any way to file a complaint before this Commission even though the complainant has averred that the cause is a continuous one. The complainant by filing an application for condoning the delay in filing the complaint submits that he had sufficient cause, for the reasons mentioned by him under the head Limitation and prayed for condone the delay and to admit the same. As aforesaid, in our opinion mere prosecuting the case at different levels of courts will not help the complainant to take shelter under Section 24 A (2) of the CP Act. In our view the complaint is hopelessly barred by time and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of abnormal delay. Accordingly, we passed the following order. Complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission as barred by time. 2. We have heard Mr. A. S. Srinivasan, the appellant in person and have considered his submissions. He has drawn our attention to the averments made by him in paras 13, 14 and 15 of the memorandum of appeal as under:- 13. The following facts would suggest as to how much time during which the complainant was prosecuting a suit in the City Civil Court and consequential proceedings and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment at various levels of proceedings, need to be excluded for computation of the period of limitation of two years for the Consumer Complaint No. 167 of 2009, the order in which gave rise to this appeal. _________________________________________________ Sl. Nature of the Date of Date of Number of No. Proceedings institution/ disposal/ days of the Filing Dismissal pendency required to be excluded 1. O.S. No. 10130/85 20-7-1985 16-12-1995 911 days in the City Civil (from 18-6-1993) Court, Bangalore 2. C.P. No. 1820/96 11-3-1996 6-2-1998 698 in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 3. R.F.A.232/98 6-2-1998 19-6-2006 3052 in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 4. SLP(c) No. 28-09-2006 12-3-2007 196 2594/07 in the Supreme Court, New Delhi 5. Review Petition 11-4-2007 6-12-2007 231 (c) No. 914 of 2007 in the Supreme Court, New Delhi 6. Curative Petition (c) 7-11-2007 11-5-2008 166 No. 37/2008 in Supreme Court, New Delhi 7. The time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment at each state:- (a) O.S.No. 10130/85 21-12-95 17-1-96 28 (b) RFA 232/98 19-6-06 3-7-06 15 (c) SLP (c) 2594/07 12-3-07 19-3-07 8 (d) RP (c) 914/07 23-8-07 6-12-07 105 (e) CP (c) 27/08 22-4-08 11-5-08 20 (14) To determine as to whether the Complaint filed by the Appellant (Complainant) was within time or not, the computation of the period of limitation has to be made by deducting 6025 days (total number of days that elapsed between the cause of action and the date of filing of the complaint) from the total number of days taken during the above proceedings plus period of two years as provided under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This was, the total number of 6025 days (total number of days that elapsed between the cause of action and the date of filing of the complaint) need to be deducted from 6160 days (the total number of 5430 days of the proceedings as detailed above plus 730 days (two years period of limitation) and by doing so, i.e. 6160 6025 = 135 days, it turns out to be 135 days within the period of limitation, the Complaint No. 167 of 2009 was filed before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Bangalore. (15) From peruse of the complaint, it is evident that the Complainant has sought to condone the delay, if any, by bringing all facts which contributed to delay in filing the Complaint by filing an application for condonation of delay. The State Commission has failed to appreciate that the Complainant had sufficient cause to delay the filing of consumer complaint and therefore dismissed the complaint in haste without applying their mind and without affording the complainant sufficient opportunity to prove his case. 3. Going by the face value of the averments made by the complainant/appellant himself, we must at once hold that the complaint filed by the appellant before the State Commission after dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court, was wholly misconceived. In any case, the appellant has brought it to our notice that he has filed a civil suit against Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited and the same is pending in civil court of Karnataka. In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular that the deficiency alleged by the complainant is relatable to July, 1985, the complaint filed in the year 2010 was patently barred by limitation. Intervening civil proceedings initiated by the bank against the appellant and his guarantors have attained finality and in any case will not revive the cause of action, which the complainant claims to have arisen in 1985. We, therefore, see no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limini. No order as to costs in these proceedings.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER ......................SURESH CHANDRAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
