JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant by Sangamma against opposite Sahara India Limited for to direct it to pay the bond amount with necessary benefits with interest and to direct it to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as a compensation for inconvenience mental shock and agony with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her mother by name Mahadevamma invested Rs. 50,000/- with opposite by purchasing five deposit receipts of Rs. 10,000/- each, she is the nominee under the said receipts. Mahadevamma died on 24-06-04, complainant being a nominee approached opposite with all necessary records for to make payment of the benefits under the bonds. Opposite neglected her claim in spite of repeated written and oral requests. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The opposite appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by denying the allegations made against it by the complainant. According to it the complaint is barred by limitation there was no deficiency in service on its part, after the death of bond holder Mahadevamma complainant approached its office and claimed the amount under the said bonds by paying loan borrowed by her mother. The death certificate produced by the complainant is forged one, it made investigation and noticed the fraud played by the complainant in getting the amount from it. This court has no jurisdiction and accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation.? 2. Whether the complainant proves that, her mother Mahadevamma invested Rs. 50,000/- through five bonds amounting to Rs. 10,000/- each with opposite and thereafter Mahadevamma died, complainant filed claim petition with all necessary records being a nominee, but opposite shown its negligence in making payment and benefits accrued on the bonds and thereby opposite found guilty under deficiency in service.? 3. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.? 4. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) In the negative. (3) In the negative. (4) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. 6 In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 7. In Para-9 Sub-Para-2 of written version it is pleaded by the opposite that, complaint is barred by limitation. According to it cause of action arose to the complainant on 24-06-04 which is the date of death of bond holder Mahadevamma otherwise complainant received the amount on 12-09-05. After the death of bond holder Mahadevamma, as such at any circumstances of this case. This complaint is barred by limitation. 8. All the facts have been denied by the complainant and contended that, she issued letter on 07-02-06 and again on 18-10-08 for payment of the bond amount and she approached the opposite for many times, but it neglected her claim and thereby she issued legal notice on 16-01-09 and complaint filed on 10-11-09 which is under limitation. 9. In the light of the circumstances stated above, it is a fact that, Mahadevamma the original bond holder died on 24-06-04, this complaint was filed by this complainant Smt. Sangamma was on 10-11-09. Ex.R-2(1) to (5) five receipts shows that, this present complainant Sangamma received the amount under five bonds by passing five separate receipts dt. 12-09-05, thereafter Ex.P-7 the notice issued by the complainant dt. 18-10-08 and Ex.P-8 is the legal notice dt. 16-01-09. Ex.p-6 is the copy of the notice said to have issued by this complainant dt. 07-02-06. 10. Ex.R-3(1) to (5) are the receipts regarding the payment of loan amount from the said five bonds to the opposite which are dt. 20-05-03, in the said circumstances the exact cause of action arose to the complainant on 12-09-05 which is the date of the receipt of bond amount by the complainant in respect of the said five bonds. Admittedly this complaint was filed on 10-11-09 which is beyond the period of limitation of two years from 12-09-05. The complainant not filed any application U/sec. 24(1) (2) of C.P. act for to condone the delay, as such the learned advocate for opposite rightly relied on the principles of the ruling reported in AIR 2009 SC 2210 State Bank of India V/s. Agricultural Industries and (2) 2002 (III) CPR 107 (SC) M/s. Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd., V/s. Vijaykumar Roy and Others. 11. Now whether the said cause of action is a continuing one in view of notices issued under Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-8, by the complainant we are of the view that issuing of such kind of notices or many other types of correspondence between the parties are not giving under cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint, after lapse of two years and the cause of action is not a continuing one to hold that, this complaint is under limitation. 12. Apart from the said facts, Ex.R-2(1) to (5) are the receipts passed by the complainant by receiving bond amount from opposite. There are no records to show that, such amount was received by her with protest, as such the principles of ruling reported in (I) 2000 CPJ 2003 Kamlesh Tiwari V/s. Manager of New India Assurance Company are aptly applicable to the facts circumstances of this case, accordingly we come to the conclusion that from any of the angle of this case, it is barred by limitation accordingly we answered in Point No-1 in affirmative. 13. The documents Ex.R-2(1) to (5) receipts passed by this present complainant and Ex.R-3(1) to (5) the loan amount paid by the complainant with regard to the said bonds are not pleaded by this complaint in her complaint. It appears to us that, material suppressions made by the complainant to get wrongful gain out of the said bonds, hence she is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed by her. 14. As regards to the merits of the case is concerned, the affidavit-evidence of PW-1 and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 are not sufficient to say that, this opposite found guilty under deficiency in its service vide documents Ex.R-1 to ex.R-7 and Ex.R-2(1) to (5) and Ex.R-3 (1) to (5), as such complainant has miserably failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite, accordingly this point is answered in negative. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint; we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Sahara India Limited is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-03-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
