Consumer Complaint No. 155/2024.

Order date: 18 .09.2024.

Today is fixed for admission hearing.

The case is taken up for hearing.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant in full.                               

            Perused the complaint, Xerox copies of documents so submitted by the complainant.

From the same, it appears that the complainant had taken a loan vide Loan a/c No. 1022319101000484 for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- only and the loan was disbursed on 18.11.2014 and as per the statement of loan-account , the said loan also was fully repaid on 12.07.2018 along with  interest and the said loan was also closed on 16.09.2018 with full satisfaction.  It is also to be mentioned here that the complainant had deposited some Kishan Vikash Patras  as security against the said loan and one certificate of Krisan Vikash Patra vide No. 24CE 129732 of Rs.10,000/- of Indian Post was pledged against the said loan.  It is pertinent to mention here that even after repayment of entire loan-amount , the OP No.1 i.e. Bank Authorities  are very much reluctant to return the above mentioned pledged documents unto the complainant and the complainant on 04.10.2018 sent a letter to the OP No.1 by requesting to release the pledged document and also obtained  receipt from the OP No. 1 and thereafter on 07.01.2019  another letter was also submitted by the complainant by requesting to release the above mentioned pledged document but the OP No.1 has turned a deaf ear unto the complainant, which is subject to deficiency in service in the eye of law.

After waiting for prolonged period, the complainant again wrote letter to the concerned authority on 15.12.2023 praying to pay the original certificate being No.  24CE 129732   but the OP remained silent. Lastly, he sent a legal notice to the OP Authorities. 

So two years have been elapsed and the case has been time barred.

Now, we find in respect of some letters/legal notice were sent by the complainant to the   OP with regard to certificate on 13.06.2024. Moreover, the dates  of

that letters/legal notice is too time-barred with regard to the date of closing the loan. Even, if there is no petition for condonation of delay, though the complainant at the time of admission raised contention of continuity of the cause of action through the previously mentioned letters /legal notice but those are also too remote to the date of closing the loan. Naturally, we find this complaint is highly time-barred by the law of limitation.

Let the admission be refused.

The case is thus disposed of not being admitted.

Member                                                  Presiding-Member               

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman                    D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman