Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
We had issued notices to both the parties on 06/08/2011. Despite notices, none has appeared for complainant as well as for the opponents. Initially the complaint involving claim of `6 Crores was filed in the National Consumer Commission. Said complaint was withdrawn from the National Consumer Commission with permission to file complaint with reduced claim in the State Consumer Commission. So, as per the order, complaint was filed claiming `1 Crore.
2. There is condonation of delay application filed in terms of Misc. Appl. No.1576/2005. In the said application, it has been mentioned that the complainant had already filed complaint in the National Consumer Commission at New Delhi and the National Consumer Commission has returned the complaint as per order dated 30/05/2005 and complainant obtained certified copy of the order on 07/06/2005 and thereafter, complainant approached his Advocate for filing complaint. The complainant pleaded that the National Consumer Commission had condoned the delay of one year, but since after condoning the delay at the time of hearing, the National Consumer Commission was of the opinion that the claim was exorbitant one and the National Consumer Commission returned the complaint to the complainant on 30/05/2005 with a direction and liberty to approach the State Consumer Commission. Thereafter, present complaint was filed on 12/07/2005.
3. The cause of action accrued to the complainant in 1998-1999 and this complaint came to be filed as late as in the year 2005. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint as filed against the Bank is obviously barred by limitation and delay sought to be condoned in filing complaint is not explained by the complainant. The complainant had closed the account with Karur Vysya Bank, Karur in the year 1998 and his grievance was that he was not given “No Due Certificate” by the Bank after closer of the account and hence, ultimately he has filed this complaint in the year 2005. We are not convinced by the causes mentioned in the delay condonation application by the complainant. So, on two grounds we are dismissing this complaint. Firstly on the ground that the complaint is not being prosecuted by the complainant despite notices issued to both the parties. Secondly, there is enormous delay in filing complaint which is not properly explained by giving just and sufficient causes. We are therefore not inclined to condone the delay. So, on this ground also since complaint is barred by limitation, we dismiss the complaint. Hence, we pass following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Complaint stands dismissed for want of prosecution and also on the ground of limitation.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 14th September 2011.
