Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.05.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 57,813/- which has not been paid.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. Seventy Five thousand only ) as compensation for harassment and litigation costs.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five lakh only ) for other losses caused due to non – payment.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that her husband Lalan Mistri was working as pump operator at PHED, Barh and he received a cheque for Rs. 57,813/- bearing cheque no. 241654 from office of PHED on account of his retirement benefit. The complainant deposited the aforesaid cheque in bank of Baroda, Nazrath Hospital, Barh, Mokama on 22.09.2008 vide receipt no. 112003 ( vide annexure – 1 ) for encashment of the aforesaid cheque with opposite party no. 2 ( i.e. the Manager Bank of Baroda Nazrath Hospital ). The same cheque was sent to opposite party no. 3 ) i.e. State bank of India, Barh Branch for clearance.
It is further case of the complainant that when the said amount was not transferred in the account of the complainant then she rushed to Barh. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 sent a letter to opposite party no. 3 about non clearance of the complainant’s cheque amount. In this letter opposite party no. 2 has requested opposite party no. 3 to proceed with the same ( cheque amount ) as will appear from annexure – 2. Again on 07.02.2009 Senior Branch Manager, Mokama sent a letter to the PHED that the cheque has been lost in transmission and requested to issue duplicate cheque as will appear from annexure – 3.
It further appears that husband of the of the complainant Lalan Mistri has filed a petition before opposite party no. 2 making his grievance that he has not received the cheque amount of Rs. 57,813/-.
It further transpires that vide annexure – 5 opposite party no. 2 requested the opposite party no. 3 to sent the cheque amount but the aforesaid cheque amount has not been credited in appropriate Khata.
It appears that despite service of notice the opposite parties did not appeared and as such this case was heard exparte.
It appears to be very hard case. In nutshell, the aforesaid cheque was issued to complainant’s husband Lalan Mistri on 04.09.2008 and he appears to have been died by 09.08.2010. After his death his wife has filed this case on 24.04.2012. it is unfortunate that despite service of notice no opposite parties have appeared and as such the case was heard exparte.
However on scrutiny it appears that cause of occurrence occurred on 22.09.2008 because on that date the aforesaid cheque was deposited with opposite party no. 2 and this case has been filed on 24.04.2012 i.e. after 4 years of the alleged occurrence. There is no any limitation petition on the record and as such this case is barred by limitation.
Before patting with this case we feel that the complainant being a poor lady has suffered much but our hands are fettered because there is no any explanation for not filing this case in this Forum within the period of 2 years.
In view of the aforesaid facts this case is not maintainable as because it is barred by limitation. However we make it clear that we have not decided this case on merit and as such the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps for redressal of her grievance.
Member President
