Haryana

Karnal

CC/628/2022

Sunil Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Mani Kaushik

22 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNAL.

                                                Complaint No.628 of 2022

                                                Date of Inst: 10.11.2022

                                                Date of Decision: 22.02.2024

 

Sunil Sharma son of Shri Sulekh Sharma, resident of H.No.338, Gandhi Nagar, Karnal. 

 

…….  Complainant

Versus

 

State Bank of India, Kalandari Gate, Branch Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                 …… Opposite parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amdned upto date.

 

 

Before:    Shri Jaswant Singh…………President

                Sh.Vineet Kaushik……….Member

                Dr.Suman Singth…………Member

 

 

Argued by: Shri Rajesh Mani, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Anand Kumar, counsel for OP.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

 

ORDER:

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred as the ‘Op’) on the averments that complainant has purchased a car make CIAZ from Karnal Motors/Nexa G.T. Road, Karnal, in the year 2017 and got the same financed from the OP. The complainant surprised when he saw the account statement of his loan account and found that the OP had debited an amount of Rs.5900/- on 05.06.2018 as penalty for not submitting the copy of RC. The complainant requested the OP that you have wrongly debited Rs.5900/-, as the complainant has already submitted the copy of RC within a month from taking the loan. The complainant requested many times to refund the said amount alongwith interest @24% per annum but the OP did not hear the genuine request of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi; concealment of true and material facts; estoppels; abuse of process of law; time barred; cause of action; jurisdiction, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has filed the present complaint after the gap of more than three years from the date of deduction of amount, hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation. As per clause No.9 (C) of the Sanction letter dated 18.10.2017, the complainant was bound to submit copy of registration certificate but after expiry of stipulated period of 120 days, he did not submit the copy of registration certificate, thus, the said amount was rightly deducted from the account of  complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.       

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of loan account statement Ex.C1, copy of saving account statement Ex.C2, copy of registration certificate Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 15.11.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurdeep Kumar, Branch Manager, SBI, Kalandari Gate, Karnal as Ex.OPW1/A, copy of RC delievered Ex.OP1, copy of agreement letter Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 15.11.2023 by suffering separate  statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has obtained a loan from the OP bank at the time of purchasing of car and after preparing of registration certificate, he submitted the same with the OP but despite timely deposition of registration certificate with the OP, the OP deducted an amount of Rs.5900/- from his account on account of non-deposition of copy of registration certificate, hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has not deposited the copy of registration certificate with the bank within stipulated period which is clearly prove from the document Ex.OP1, thus the said amount was rightly deducted from the account of complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Before going into the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether the present complaint has been filed within period of limitation or not as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

11.           Limitation for filing a complaint before the Commission, has been described under Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

1. The District Commission, 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.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, 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 District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

12.           As per aforesaid Section of Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present complaint, the disputed amount has been deducted from the account of the complainant on 05.06.2018 and the cause of action has arisen on the said date and the complainant could file the complaint till 04.06.2020, but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 10.11.2022 i.e. after the gap of more than four years from the date of arising the cause of action. Moreover, there is no separate application, on the file to condone the delay or has not made any prayer for condonation of delay in the complaint and no sufficient cause has been shown by the complainant for not filing the complaint within limitation period prescribed in Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The disputed amount has been deducted from the saving account of the complainant. The complainant is an advocate by profession and it is not possible that he has not checked the entry of deduction of said amount from his account in the year 2018. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and is not maintainable before this Commission.

13.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Dated: 22.02.2024  

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                           Member                          Member