Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President . <br /> In brief the case of the Complainant is that, the Complainant has purchased two Term Deposit Receipts (T.D.R) on Dt.23/09/2004 of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each bearing Sl. No. TD/A/31-015199, pledged to the C.D.P.O. Attabira and the other Sl. No. TD/A/31-015200 which was pledged infavour of B.D.O. Attabira with maturity value after 15(fifteen) months on Dt.23/12/2005 as being Rs.10,641/- (Rupees ten thousand six hundred forty one) only each. The said TDRs were further numbered by the Opposite Party as being No.012922065253 and 0125065253 respectively.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that, the TDR No.015199, which was pledged to the C.D.P.O. Attabira, illegally and arbitrarily retained by the pledgee and after repeated request and Advocates demand notice u/s.80 C.P.C., on Dt.28/02/2008 the pledgee released the lien and returned the said TDR to the Complainant with a covering letter of release of lien addressed to the Opposite Party. The Complainant presented the said TDR in original along with the release letter No.86 of the pledgee to the Opposite Party for payment of dues along with further interest . But the Opposite Party by his letter Dt.23/04/2008 refused payment of the just dues of the Complainant allegedly payment for the other TDR pledged to the B.D.O. was paid twice, once in cash on Dt.26/09/2006 and again through A/C on Dt.07/06/2007 and to simplify the matter the alleged cash payment of Dt.26/09/2006 be treated as payment against the said refused TDR.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that, refusal of payment of the said refused T.D.R. as well as the explanations offered by the Opposite Party are arbitrary, illegal unwarranted and unacceptable. Despite sincere efforts and requests especially clearly explaining out the factual position by letter Dt.20/03/2008 the Opposite Party arbitrarily and illegally not paid the just dues of the Complainant for which she suffer financial loss physical harassment and mental agony.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed the case and claims Rs.14,980/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred eighty) only being the principal and interest on the said refused T.D.R till Dt.01/04/2010 and for further interest at the Bank rate of 12% (twelve percent) per annum from Dt.01/04/2010 till actual date of payment and adequate compensation for deficiency in service with litigation cost.<br /> <br /> On being noticed the Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed its written version through its counsel. In its version the Opposite Party admits to the extends that the Complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)only vide T.D.R receipt No.015199 and on the same date had also deposited Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)only in TDR receipt No.015200 and the due date of maturity of both the TDRs were Dt.23/12/2005. The Opposite Party denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and also denied all other allegations made by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant presented the original TDR receipt No.0152200 for payment on Dt.26/06/2006 and received its proceeds amounting to Rs.11,008/-(Rupees eleven thousand eight)only. After received of the payment, the Complainant submitted before this Opposite Party that, the original TDR No.015200 Dt.23/09/2004 is missing and the Opposite Party trusting the version of the Complainant issued a duplicate TDR in place of original TDR bearing same number and date, interest with necessary endorsement on it. On the request of the Complainant, the Opposite Party credited the proceeds of duplicate TDR receipt No.015200 amounting to Rs.11,441/-(Rupees eleven thousand four hundred forty one)only on Dt.07/06/2007 in the Saving Bank Account No.30070592603 of the Complainant Smt. Lalita Banka. <br /> <br /> On verification of record it was ascertained by the Opposite Party that, the Complainant has submitted her original TDR No.15200 Dt.23/09/2004 and has received cash payment and since the Opposite Party has already credited the proceeds of duplicate TDR receipt No.0152200 in the SB Account of the Complainant, the Opposite Party explained the matter to complaint and her husband in details and with an object not to make the matter complicated the Complainant and the Opposite Party agree to adjust the proceeds of TDR receipt No.15199 DT.23/09/2004 which was purchased on the same date for same amount with same rate of interest.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contends that taking advantage of the facts that on Dt.07/06/2007 when the Opposite Party made payment of the proceeds of TDR receipt No.015199, the said TDR receipt was pledged with C.D.P.O. Attabira and was not released and in first week of March-2008 sought payment of proceeds of the TDR No.015199. The Opposite Party placed before the Complainant the details of the facts of payment of TDR No.015199 and 015200. The Complainant convinced and surrendered the original TDR receipt No.015199 before the Opposite Party.<br /> Further the Opposite Party contends that, the present case has not been filed with in two years from the date of cause of action and hence the Complainant is barred by time.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party deny to have cause any deficiency in providing any service to the Complainant and hence prays for dismissal of the Complainant with cost.<br /> Perused the Complainant petition Opposite Parties version as well as the copy of documents filed by the Parties in respective of their cases and find as follows:-<br /> The Complainant had purchased two Term Deposit Receipts (TDR) of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) Only each bearing TDR receipts No. TD/A/31-015199 and TD/A/31-015200, from the Opposite Party and the due date of maturity of both the TDRs were Dt.23/12/2005 is not disputed by the Parties. The Complainant admits that he has received the proceed of TDR receipts No.015200 on Dt.26/09/2006 and since the payment was made in cash, her husband Sri Tarachand Agrawal was a witness to it and attested the signature of the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that, the Opposite Party refused to give the proceeds of TDR receipt No.015199 arbitrarily.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant has also received the proceeds of TDR No.015199 Dt.23/09/2004 which was credited in her SB Account No.30070592603 on Dt.07/06/2007. To substantiate his case the Opposite Party states that, the Complainant submits before the Opposite Party that the original TDR No.015200 Dt.23/09/2004 is missing and trusting the version of the Complainant issued a duplicate TDR in place of original TDR No.015200 bearing same number and date and on the request of the Complainant, this Opposite Party credited the proceeds of duplicate TDR No.015200 amounting to Rs.11,441/-(Rupees eleven thousand four hundred forty one)only in the SB Account of the Complainant. Since the Complainant has received the proceeds of TDR Receipt No.015200 once in original in cash and another through the duplicate TDR Receipt No.015200, the proceeds was credited in his SB Account on Dt.07/06/2007. So the proceeds of TDR No.015200 was received by the Complainant twice once by original TDR and another by duplicate TDR. This fact was explained to the Complainant by the Opposite Party and both the Parties agrees to adjust the proceeds of TDR No.015199 Dt.23/09/2004. The Complainant convinced the fact and surrendered the original TDR No.015199 before the Opposite Party. Again the Complainant wrote a letter on Dt.20/03/2008 insisting for payment of the proceeds of TDR Receipts No.015199 which was replied by the Opposite Party on Dt.23/04/2008 stating there in about the payment of TDR Receipt No.015199 and 015200.<br /> <br /> Thus the cause of action for the case arosed on Dt.07/06/2007 when the proceeds of TDR Receipt No.015199 was credited in the SB Account of the Complainant and was on subsequent dates when the Complainant operated the afore said account with full knowledge that the amount has been credited in her account and on Dt.20/03/2008, when the Complainant represented in writing her grievance to the Opposite Parties. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that, the Bank has sent replay on Dt.23/04/2008. So the cause of action starts from Dt.23/04/2008 and the case having been filed on Dt.19/042010 is with in time. On perusal of the reply letter Dt.23/04/2008 by the Opposite Party to the notice of the Complainant Dt.20/03/2008, reveals that the Complainant had full knowledge that Bank has made payment of proceeds of undisputed STDR No.015200 and the disputed STDR No.015199. The Bank has not by his reply Dt.23/04/2008 acknowledged its liability. So it can not be said that the limitation came to be extended by Opposite Party/Bank's reply Dt.23/04/2008. The Complainant has full knowledge about the fact before the reply Dt.23/04/2008. The Banks reply Dt.23/04/2008 can not help the complaint in the point of limitation.<br /> <br /> The cause of action for this case arose on Dt.20/03/2008. The complaint should have filed with in two years from the date of cause action. But the present case has been filed on Dt.19/04/2010 is beyond limitation. Hence the case is barred by time. <br /> <br /> The Advocate for the Opposite Party relied on a decision reported in 2010(i) CLR(SC) page 497 which supports the case of the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint stands dismissed as time barred. <br /> <br /> Complaint disposed Off.