1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that for eking her livelihood, she took a loan of Rs.6.00 lacs from OP.1 by hypothecating her Ashok Ley Land Truck No. OR 10D 7579 in favour of STFC Ltd., Kolkata on 13.2.2008.  It is submitted that at the time of availing loan the OP.1 and his employees took signatures of the complainant on the unfilled blank agreement papers with blank lines and in spite of protest the complainant was compelled by the OP.1 to sign on those papers for which the complainant could not know the rate of interest on the loan put by the Ops.  The complainant submitted that in spite of request letter dt.14.12.08 and subsequent letters to supply the loan related documents, the OP.1 did not take any action thereby violating the RBI guidelines dt.28.9.2006 to the NBFC to adopt guidelines of fare practice code.  It is further submitted that the OP.1 and his henchmen took possession of said vehicle without giving notice to the complainant and sold the vehicle on 13.12.2011 at Rs.2, 20,000/- and for such illegal action of the Ops the complainant sustained mental agony and pecuniary loss.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.5, 29,515/- towards loss sustained by the complainant for the illegal action of the Ops and to pay Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint challenging the maintainability of this case under law of limitation and contended that the complainant availed financial assistance of Rs.6.00 lacs from the OP.1 vide Contact No. TSLRYGDA 0000228 and agreed to repay with interest in fixed EMIs commencing from 13.02.2008.  Denying the allegation of the complainant that she has signed the blank white papers, the Ops contended that the complainant is an educated lady and hence she has signed the agreement papers on going through it.  The Ops submitted that the complainant failed to repay the loan dues in time for which the Ops suffered financial loss and challenging the maintainability of this case, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant has filed affidavit. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.  Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.

4.                     In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.6.00 lacs with financial charges of Rs.2, 87,985 for a total sum of Rs.8, 87,985/- from OP.1 on 13.02.2008.  Although the number of EMIs fixed by the Ops for recovery of loan dues has not been mentioned by any of the parties, it was revealed from the documents available that the EMIs are to be recovered from 15.03.2008 till 15.11.2011.  The case of the complainant is that up to 31.05.2010 she has paid Rs.3, 27,500/- to the Ops but the Ops repossessed the truck in May, 2010 and illegally sold the vehicle on 13.12.2011 for Rs.2, 20,000/-.

5.                     The Ops challenged the case of the complainant on the ground of limitation stating that the present case is barred by limitation and is to be dismissed on the same ground.  Before going to the other merits of this case, it is incumbent on our part to decide the sole preliminary issue raised by the Ops.  It is seen that the loan has been sanctioned by the Ops vide loan agreement dt.13.2.2008.  As stated by the complainant, the vehicle has been repossessed during May, 2010 and sold on 13.12.2011 by the Ops.  Section 24A of C. P. Act stipulates that the Forums under C. P. Act shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  Now it is to be ascertained on which date the cause of action has arisen.  We saw as many as three dates for arising of alleged cause of action and they are, date of agreement on 13.2.2008, repossession of the vehicle during May 2010 and sale of vehicle on 13.12.2011.   In our opinion, the period of limitation would run from the date of sale of the vehicle by the Ops as last date of cause of action.  The date of sale of the vehicle in this case is 13.12.2011 and the case was to be filed within two years from that date but it has been filed on 16.02.2015 i.e. after three years.  No delay condo nation petition has been filed by the complainant showing that she had sufficient cause for not filing the complainant within such period.  Hence in the above circumstances it can be safely held that the present case is barred by time.  Reliance can be given to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2009 (3) CPR 784 (SC) where it has been held that “The limitation period prescribed is peremptory in nature – If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merit, the Forum would be committing an illegality”.

6.                     In this case the last date of cause of action arose on 13.12.2011 when the repossessed vehicle was sold whereas the complainant has filed this case on 16.02.2015.  The complainant has taken much pain and referred number of circulars and guidelines of RBI to unveil the unfair trade practice adopted by the OP resulting huge loss sustained by her.  It is for the Forum to determine the question as to whether the case is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that as to whether such a plea has been raised by the parties; such a jurisdictional fact need not be even pleaded.  Insofar as the present case is concerned, at the first availability opportunity in the counter itself the Ops have raised the plea that the complaint is barred by limitation.  There is no application for condonation of delay and hence the question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise.

7.                     In the result, the complainant petition stands dismissed as time barred.  The parties shall bear their own costs.      

(to dict.)