Delhi

North

CC/165/2015

SHEEL KUMAR DHAWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYNDICATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

AUGUSTINE CHATERJEE

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 165/2015

Sh. Sheel Kumar Dhawan       

S/o Late Shri Asa Singh Dhawan

R/o 4529,DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon

C/o Indian Art Leather Store, 5194,

Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006                                                                ...            Complainant

                                                          VS

Syndicate Bank

Chandni Chowk Branch

1489, JTD Building

Near Moti Cinema

Chandni Chowk, Delhi

Through Chief Manager

Rakesh Manager                                                             …        Opposite Party

                                     

ORDER

28/2/2023

Harpreet Kaur Charya: Member

The present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sheel Kumar Dhawan, the complainant, against Syndicate Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi, OP with the allegations of deficiency in goods (sic) and services.

Facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that on 27/03/1991, the complainant got issued ‘Vikas Cash Certificate’ (herein after referred to as “VCC”), a term deposit bearing No.374568/760 from OP.  The date of maturity being 27/03/1993, with maturity amount as Rs.21,931.20.

It has been stated by the complainant that he regularly visited OP, to get the “VCC” encashed, however, same was not done by OP on one pretext or the other.  Finally, on 13/06/2011, the complainant wrote a letter to the Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chandni Chowk (OP) requesting the OP to encash and handover the maturity amount. After several visits and reminders, the complainant received a letter dated 29/11/2013(sic) though the letter is of date 29/11/2011, from Chief Manager, Chandni Chowk. The said letter was addressed to Deputy General Manager, Law & Claim section, Regional Office, New Delhi, with request to look into the matter, as the record of the said “VCC” was untraceable.  In the said letter it was suggested that duplicate “VCC” must have been issued and got encashed.  However, no records of duplicate “VCC” were shared with the complainant.

 As per the complaint Legal Notice dated 15/11/2014 was served upon OP, which was duly replied by OP vide their reply dated 27/04/2015.

The complainant has stated that the cause of action for filing present complaint arose on 17/11/2014, when no reply to the Legal notice dated 15/11/2014 was received. Therefore, the present complaint was within period prescribed under Section 24A, of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Hence, the present complaint with prayer for directions to OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deficiency in “goods (sic) and services” and cost of litigation.

The complainant has annexed the photocopy of the “VCC” as Annexure A, Letter to the Bank Manager as Annexure B (colly.),Copy of the legal notice as Annexure C, Postal receipts of Legal Notice sent to Bank as Annexure D, Reply  dated 27/04/2015 sent by the OP to the above said Legal notice as Annexure E, with the complaint.

Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP, however no reply was filed on their behalf and as they did not appear on subsequent dates, they were proceeded “Ex-parte” vide order dated 30/11/2015. Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has reiterated the contents of this complaint.  He has also relied upon the documents annexed with the complaint.

We have perused the material placed on record and the written submission filed by the OP on 5/07/2016 as none has appeared on behalf of the parties to argue.  The complainant has alleged that OP did not pay the maturity proceeds for the “VCC” which matured on 27/03/1993. It is pertinent to note that as per the complaint, a written representation was made to OP only on 13/06/2011, Annexure B (colly.), which is after a period of 18 years, 2 months and 17 days. In response to the said letter, OP had forwarded the letter to the Deputy General Manager, Law & Claim Section, Regional office and the copy of the same was also shared with the complainant, the said letter is dated 27/11/2011 . Thereafter, again, OP vide letter dated 17/12/2011 updated the complainant regarding escalation of matter with higher authorities and finally, through another letter dated 04/01/2012 with   Ref no.CCD:9003:2012:09:VCC, the complainant was requested to furnish the Saving Bank Passbook/statement of account for the relevant period in order to enable them to proceed further. It is not the case of the complainant that he had supplied the passbook to the OP in compliance of the letter dated 04/01/2012. The complainant has no where explained as in what manner he was pursuing his case with OP after the said letter. So, to determine whether the present complaint has been filed within the Limitation period as prescribed under Section 24A, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which is being reproduced hereunder:

 “24A - 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.

(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 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 or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

 We need to look at the pleadings and the documents annexed with the complaint. As per para 11 of the complaint:

“11.That the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose on 17/11/2014 when no reply to the legal notice dated 15/11/2014 was received by the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is being filed within the prescribed period of limitation as per section 24A of the act.”

The right to get the ‘VCC’ encashed accrued in the favour of the Complainant on 27/03/1993 i.e. the date of maturity. However, the Complainant did not exercise his right at that time and it was only on 13/06/2011, which is after a lapse of 18 years 2 months and 17 days he wrote a letter to OP stating that while sorting out his records he found the said ‘VCC’. The complainant has given no sufficient cause for this delay. Thereafter, again the complainant remained inactive from the last correspondence from OP, which is dated 04/01/2012 till sending of the Legal Notice dated 15/11/2014, this period comes to 2 years 10 months and 11 days. In the reply dated 27/04/2015 (Annexure E) to the Legal Notice, OP has stated that the said Legal Notice is time barred.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tripura & Ors.  vs Rabindra Chakraborty & Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 460] held that: 

“10. In our opinion the suit was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, where there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended.  The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation.  A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the dates on which the last representation is decided.....”

Even in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. vs National Insurance Co. & Anr.(2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“22. It is, therefore, clear from the afore noted correspondence between the appellant and the Insurance Co. that cause of action in respect of the special insurance policy arose on 22-3-1988/23-3-1988, when the fire in the godown took place damaging the tobacco stocks hypothecated with the bank in whose account the policy had been taken by the appellant.  Thus the limitation for the purpose of Section 24-A of the Act begin to run from 23-3-1988 and therefore, the complaint before the Commission against the Insurance Company for deficiency in service, whether for non-issue of claim form or for not processing the claim under the policy, ought to have being filed within two years thereof. As noticed above, the complaint was in fact filed on or after 24-10-1997, which was clearly time barred.” 

“25. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Insurance company’s reply dated 21-3-1996 to the legal notice dated 4-1-1996 declining to issue the form for preference a claim after collapse of more than four years of the date of fire, resulted in extending the period of limitation for the purpose of Section 24-A of the Act.  We have no hesitation in holding that the complaint filed on 24-10-1997 and that too without an application for condonation of delay was manifestly barred by limitation and the Commission was justified in dismissing it on that short ground.” 

Similarly, the Hon’ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, also observed that no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.

Therefore, it is settled principle of law that no amount of representation shall extend the period of limitation. The complainant was negligent and careless in exercising his right. After a lapse of more than two decades, the Complainant cannot allege deficiency in services against OP, when the complainant himself did not act diligently and has not even filed the original ‘VCC’. The complainant could invoke the jurisdiction of this commission within 2 years from the date of maturity i.e. 27/03/1993. The date of institution of the present complaint is 27/07/2015. The Complainant has not filed an application for condonation of delay and there is an unexplained delay of 7,427 days. Therefore, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by Limitation.

It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries,(2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 121  as under:-

“12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

Similarly, Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Kishore Shriram Sathe vs. Vivek Gajanan Joshi (Revision Petition No. 1953 of 2011) decided on 01.10.2013  also followed the same.

Therefore, in the light of the above judgement, as the Complaint is barred by limitation, we are not getting into the merits of  this complaint hence, the present complaint is dismissed being barred by limitation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar) President