MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
ORDER
04.06.2024
1. A complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts of the complaint are that complainant opened the FDR No. 01392063313 with a deposit of Rs. 1,76,000/- payable 12 months, after date with interest @ 12 % p.a. The original FDR opened with OP on 08.02.1996. The complainant visited the office of OP on 18.05.2023 and handed over the fixed receipt no. SN/A/I0313 which was earlier reinvested vide reinvestment plan N/99/69013920 renewed for a sum of Rs. 3,46,348/- on 10.04.2002. Again for 36 months commencing from 10.04.2002 to 10.04.2005 the money was reinvested and the maturity valued as on 10.04.2005 was Rs. 4,39,253/-.
2. Vide letter dated 22.06.2023, complainant requested OP for releasing the FD proceeds lying with the OP since 10.04.2002. By virtue of letter dated 27.07.2023 the official of the OP informed that the then Branch NRI Marina Arcade merged with the OP and as such record is not traceable. The complainant met with the officials of the OP and request him to verify the record and release the money but the officials shows its inability as the papers were not available with the OP Bank.
3. Being aggrieved by the services of the OP complainant served legal notices to the OP thereby requesting it to release the FDR proceed and finally after various correspondence it is inform by OP that the FDR in question has been closed prematurely on 07.05.2005 and released in favor of the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that the original FDR is in his custody than how the bank can release the maturity valued of the FDR on 07.05.2005. Being dissatisfied and disappointed by the functioning by the OP Bank complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
4. The present complaint case is on admission stage. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Pankaj Sachdeva on admission as well as limitation issue and have perused the record.
5. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that the complainant is the resident of Pritampura, Delhi, hence this commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. He further argued that since the OP failed to release the proceeds of FDR dated 10.04.2002 in favor of the complainant the cause of action is continuing one, hence, the present complaint is well within limitation.
6. Before adverting to the disposal of the present complaint let us peruse the relevant provision in respect of limitation provided under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: -
- The District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the complaint should be preferred within a period of two years of the accrual of cause of action.
8. Admittedly, the complainant initially purchased the FDR from OP Bank for the period from 08.02.1996 to 10.04.2002, thereafter, complainant renewed the FDR for a period of 36 months commencing from 10.04.2002 to 10.04.2005 with the maturing valued of Rs. 4,39,253/-.
9. Admittedly, the FDR in question got matured on 10.04.2005, hence the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 10.04.2005. The complainant ought to have file the present complaint in respect to the non release of the proceed of FDR in question within two years of the accrual of the cause of action i.e. 10.04.2007. The complainant approached this Commission on 02.05.2024 i.e after 19 years of the accrual of substantive cause of action.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that substantive cause of action for filing the present complaint arose 10.04.2005 the complainant ought to have file the present complaint within two year of the accrual of cause of action i.e. 10.04.2007. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 02.05.2024 i.e after the delay of 17 years, the present complaint is therefore barred by limitation, hence, dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
10. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Announced in open Commission on 04.06.2024.
Sanjay Kumar Nipur Chandna Rajesh
President Member Member
