Delhi

North East

CC/51/2019

Sh. Vijai Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

05 Aug 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 51/19

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Vijai Singh S/o Late Sh. Nobat Singh R/o B-46, Gali no. 1 Ganga Vihar, Delhi-92	Complainant
	Versus
	Branch Manager State Bank of India Branch Seelampur,	Opposite Party

                

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION  :

15.04.2019 05.08.2019 05.08.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts in brief giving rise to the present complaint are that the complainant having savings bank account bearing no. 23244/82 with OP’s Seelampur, Delhi Branch since 1995 had balance of  Rs. 83,245/- as on 10.08.2001 when the complainant last accessed / operated the said account and thereafter no transaction was done by him due to non-presentation of passbook since that time. When the complainant visited the said branch after 18 years in 2019 and requested the OP official to issue either a new passbook or update previous one so that the complainant could withdraw the entire amount, he was asked by the dealing clerk to submit the KYC. However, on submission of the same, the Branch Manager of OP asked the complainant to produce affidavit to the effect that Vijai Singh and Vijai Singh Yadav one and the same person owing to discrepancy in complainant’s name on record. However, despite production of the said affidavit, the OP refused to accept the same refusing to acknowledging complainant as authorized person of the passbook produced by him as account not belonging to him and asked him to visit the OP’s DDA branch where his account was transferred. The complainant visited the said branch but his account could not be located there and was merely handed over statement of account. The complainant issued a legal notice through counsel dated 23.06.2019 to OP after which the OP vide letter dated 27.09.2018 sent a statement of account pertaining to the complainant since 18.08.2001 till date of closing. On receiving the said statement the complainant discovered that there was four debit transactions from his account between August 2001 to December 2001 and one in June 2002 disputed by him for want of any ATM or cheque book or passbook as against OP’s contention that said passbook was updated many times. Therefore, vide the present complaint the complainant prayed for issuance of direction to OP to provide the deposited amount of Rs. 83,245/- to complainant lying with OP in the account of the complainant after verifying authenticity and validity of passbook holder i.e. complainant.
2. Complainant has attached copy of old passbook issued on 30.11.1995 with last manual entry dated 10.08.2001 for withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/- with balance shown as Rs. 83,245/- copy of legal notice 23.06.2019 issued by complainant’s counsel to OP demanding updation of passbook and refund of money in the account alongwith postal receipt for proof of dispatch and letter dated 27.09.2018 by OP in reply / response thereto enclosing statement of account of complainant’s savings bank account showing several transactions from August 2001 to December 2004 with account balance of Rs. 3,26,907/-. OP further attached sheet 1 & 2 of transactions detail of complainant’s account from January 2005 till April 2008 from balance shown as Rs. 3,26,907/- (January 2005) till 11.04.2008 when the status of the account is shown as closed and balance transferred with NIL.
3. Due to defects in the complaint the complainant directed to file amendment complaint vide order dated 20.05.2019. Complainant filed the same Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
4. During the course of arguments on admission, the Forum raised specific query upon the complainant to explain the two startling contradictions between the statement made by him in the complaint and documentary evidence placed on record; firstly the discrepancy in the balance amount in the said account and secondly the date and period till when the account was accessed and transactions made therein post August 2001. To both the questions, the complainant had no cogent, comprehensive or logical explanation / justification. As per the statement of account filed by the complainant himself as supplied to him by OP, the account was accessed and transactions were made not till August 2001 but till April 2008 and several withdrawals and deposits and interest and cheque credit entries can be seen in the narration qua the said account from 2001 to 2004 which the complainant utterly failed to explain much less justify without a passbook as has been made out in the present complaint. It is preposterous to even believe or lead any credence to the version of the complainant of gaining knowledge of such transactional discrepancies after a long gap of 18 years or even 11 years as per OP’s statement of account. Further, it is unfathomable that the complainant did not inquire or access his account for 18 years where more than Rs. 3,00,000/- were lying since October 2002 when a cheque of Rs. 3,26,907/- got credited in his account and still the prayer in the complaint is for the initial balance of Rs. 83,245/- as was in April 2001.  Be that as it may, in both scenarios, the complaint is time barred and no ‘sufficient cause’ has been shown by the complainant for such an inordinate delay in vast expanse of time notwithstanding the discrepancies and contradictions in complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj & Anr. Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 2013 AIR SCW 6510 held that sufficient cause means adequate and enough reasons which prevented the applicant to approach the within limitation and party should not have acted in negligent manner or for want of bonafides. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law” stands attracted in such a situation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj (Supra) case. In Ramlal & Ors Vs. Rewa Coalfield Ltd, AIR 1962 SC 361, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court cannot be said to have acted non judicially when it dismisses an application for condonation of delay where no sufficient reasons are shown as it is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Ramlingam vs R.B. Bhavaneshwari I (2009) SLT 701 laid down that the true guide for examining whether delay in filing has been properly explained is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal / petition.
5. In the present case however, the complainant has failed to even file any application for condonation of delay and is rather trying to cover up his own acts of omission and commission under the garb of non access of account for 18 years and acquiring knowledge for the first time in early 2019 to cover his complaint under limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) observed that while dealing with such cases of delay, the court has to keep in mind the special period of limitation as prescribed under Section    24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the object of expeditious adjudication and speedy redressal of consumer dispute will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated such like complaints in routine manner without any specific reasons supported by material as is squarely applicable in the present case.
6. Further after thorough appreciation of documentary record placed on record by complainant and serious discrepancies and contradictions between the averments made in the complaint and documents filed alongwith the complaint, we are of the considered view that the complaint is wholly misconceived and frivolous meriting dismissal u/s 26 of CPA. The Hon'ble National Commission in the latest judgment of Bajee Govindan Vs P. Santhosh Kumar Advocate III (2019) CPJ 13 (NC) held that Consumer Protection Fora are not meant to be a tool for creating ‘nuisance value’ or for indulging in vexatious harassment through frivolous complaint which requires to be put an end to. Hon'ble National Commission further observed that time and resources of the court get wasted in such manner and warned the complainant to desist from misusing statutory process of law providing under Consumer Protection Act and dismissed the complaint. Therefore, in light of the observation of the Hon'ble National Commission squarely applicable the present case as well, with stern warning to the complainant to refrain from indulging in such frivolous litigation lest monetary deterrent is imposed on him the complaint being inordinately time barred as well as frivolous is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.
7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to complainant free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.
9. Announced on  05.08.2019

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member