Date of Filing:13.05.2009<br /> Date of Order:26.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1109 OF 2009<br /> <br /> 1. S.V.A. Meenakshi Sundaram<br /> S/o. S.V. Aswathanarayanan<br /> Residing at No. H 33<br /> New ASTC Hudco<br /> Hosur Tamil Nadu 635109<br /> <br /> 2. Padmavathi Sundaram<br /> W/o. S.V.A. Meenakshi Sundaram<br /> R/at No. H 33, New ASTC Hudco<br /> Hosur Tamil Nadu 635109 Complainants<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> State Bank of India<br /> City Branch (0814)<br /> P.B. No. 6511, # 22<br /> J C Road, Bangalore 560002<br /> Represented by its Chief Manager Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainants under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The complainants before they left for USA by the end of August 2005 the complainant checked his account which had a credit balance of Rs. 23,970/-. The complainant requested the opposite party to scrutinize the account and report back. There is no response by call. E-mail received from the opposite party till 22.12.2005. Opposite party informed that closing balance of the complainant son’s account Rs. 65,205/- which is wrong as per the statement of account. It is submitted that on 13.05.2005 complainant’s son called back the opposite party. Complainant’s son requested the opposite party to scrutinize both NRE and S.B. A/c thoroughly well and send the statement of account. Opposite party sent e-mail on 22.12.2005 where no statement of account received. E-mail report clearly amounts to dereliction of duty. It is the case of the complainant that he has lodged complaint against opposite party bank to the office of the Banking Ombudsman (Karnataka) was forwarded for further investigation to the Reserve Bank of India officials against the opposite party. It has been stated by the RBI that wrong debits in NRE / SB A/c were made during the transition period when the bank migrated to core Banking solutions. It is stated by the Reserve Bank of India that the wrong debits have been reversed by SBI subsequently and the interest of the period on account of wrong debits have been made good by the bank. It is the case of the complainant that the bank has not made interest good for the period because of wrong debit of Rs. 34,732/- from 21.10.2005 till this date. This clearly shows opposite party has informed Reserve Bank of Officials of all the wrong doings occurred in the Bank, falsely thereby misguiding them. The complainant submitted that interest for the wrong debits of five extraneous cheques amounting to Rs. 34,732/- withdrawn by the opposite party from 21.10.2005 to 25.10.2005 is yet to be compensated till date today. Opposite party has falsely reported to the RBI that interest for the period of account of wrong debit has been made good by the SBI. Therefore, the complainants have prayed grant of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards consequential damages and Rs. 2,00,000/- is sought towards liquidated damages and Rs. 2,00,000/- is claimed towards mental agony and hardship and the complainants prayed to direct the concerned authorities to initiate departmental enquiries against erring officials of the bank. <br /> 2. Opposite party appeared and filed defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Complainant is having NRE SB A/c and fixed term deposit are true. The bank has not denied any proper service to the complainant. The entire allegations are with respect to the period of 2005-06. As per Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986, any complaint to the forum has to be filed within two years from the date of arising of cause of action. In this view of the matter, the complaint is liable to be rejected. Five wrong debits amounting to Rs. 34,732/- were made to the account of Sri Meenakshi Sundaram from 21.10.2005 to 25.10.2005 and six wrong debits were made amounting to Rs. 43,789/- with respect to the account of Smt. Padmavathi Sundaram from 25.10.2005 to 28.10.2005. Bank also wrote letter informing wrong debit entry and reverse entries carried out by the bank. It is the case of the opposite party that the bank has paid interest on wrong debits by subsequent credit on 08.03.2008 based on S.B. A/c rate of interest. The problems that had surfaced was only due to technical snag, which was beyond the control of human power. There is no deliberate deficiency by the officials of the bank in rendering services to the customers. However, incorrectness have been rectified in time without putting the customer into any financial difficulties. For all these reasons stated above the opposite party bank requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard. We have gone through the complaint allegations, defence version and the documents produced by the parties.<br /> 4. In the light of the defence taken by the opposite party bank the following points arises for consideration:<br /> 1. Whether complaint is barred by time?<br /> 2. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?<br /> 5. By going through the entire complaint allegations it is very clear that the transaction in this case pertains to the wrong debit entries made in the accounts of complainant by opposite party bank in the month of October 2005. Wrong debit entries to the accounts of the complainants amounting to Rs. 34,732/- were made by the bank in the month of October 2005. It is also admitted fact that the bank had reversed the wrong debit entries and the bank has produced statement of account. As per the account statement the wrong debit entries have been reversed to the accounts of the complainants in the month of December 2005. Therefore, the cause of action to file the complaint for deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank has been arising to the complainants in the month of October 2005 when the wrong debit entries were made and in the month of December 2005 when the wrong debit entries have been reversed to the account of the complainant. If the complainants had any grievance against the opposite party bank they could have filed the complaint within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The present complaint has been filed on 13.05.2009 beyond period of two years. There was delay of more than 1 ½ years in filing complaint. Admittedly, the complainants have not filed application for condonation of delay. Complainants have not stated anything in their complaint the reasons for delay in filing complaint. The complainants in a very intelligent manner have not mentioned in whole of their complaint as to when the cause of action arisen to them to file the complaint. Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act deals with limitation aspect. It is better to refer the said section.<br /> “24 A. Limitation Period – (1) 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.”<br /> 6. So as per this section it is very clear that the district forum shall not admit the complaint filed beyond the period of two years from the date of cause of action. This provision is a mandatory provision. The forum has to given effect to this provision. There is absolutely no scope to entertain and grant any relief to the complainants because the complaint is barred by time. Unfortunately, the complainant has not followed the provisions of Sub Clause (2) of Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act. A complaint may be entertained after period specified in Sub clause (1) if the complainant satisfies the district forum that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the limitation period. Admittedly, the complainants have not filed any application and they have not shown any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation allowed by the law. So under these circumstances the complaint being hopelessly barred by time is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation itself. The learned counsel for the opposite party referred a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court 2009 SAR (Civil) 673 between Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s National Insurance Co. & Anr.<br /> “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sec. 24A - Sec. bars any fora from admitting the complaint unless the same is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen – Fire insurance policy – Date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out – Fire in the tobacco godown took place on 22nd / 23rd March, 1988 and the Bank, in whose favour the stocks had been hypothecated was inform about it by 23rd March, 1988 – Appellant had not made any claim – As a matter of fact, only on 6th Nov. 1992, they asked for supply of “claim forms” – By that time period of limitation for purpose of Sec. 24 A had expired – Appellant was not depending on the claim stated to have been made by the Bank with Insurance Company – Complaint filed on 24th October, 1997 without an application for condonation of delay – Whether commission was justified in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation – Held : yes.”<br /> <br /> 7. The above authority of law in all force applicable to the facts of the present case also. Therefore, relying on the above authority of law complaint deserves to be dismissed since the same is barred by time. The other points taken for consideration need not be discussed or answered. It would be wholly unnecessary to discuss the other issues in this case. When the complaints filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be admitted or entertained, the question of discussing or giving finding on other issues is wholly unnecessary and unwarranted. Therefore, the issue No. 1 taken for consideration is answered to the effect that complaint is barred by time and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 9. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />