BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 393/2011 Filed on 12.12.2011
Dated : 30.06.2012
Complainant :
Ignatius, S/o Varghese, Parakkottukuzhi, Thadatharikathu Veedu, Panniyode, Veeranakavu Village, Nedumangad Taluk.
(By adv. M. Vijaya Kumar)
Opposite party :
The Manager, Federal Bank, Kallikadu Branch.
(By adv. V.A. Baburaj)
This O.P having been heard on 31.05.2012, the Forum on 30.06.2012 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party alleging as follows: He had availed a loan from the opposite party for running a tourist taxi as a means of self employment, hypothecated to the above bank, that the complainant paid Rs. 1,73,000/- properly as per the conditions of the Bank during the period 1997 and 2001. During the course of his employment the C.F test was essential for continuing his taxi service. Hence the complainant noticed the bank to inform about the bank clearance concerning the vehicle to the vehicle authorities for C.F test, insurance registration etc. But the bank did not give original records and there was no reaction. Hence the complainant could not take CF test dated on 07.12.2002 due to the negligence of the bank. The reason is that the original documents of the above said vehicle such as R.C. Book, insurance paper etc. are under the custody of the bank. Hence the complainant asked for the original documents. Even though property documents were produced and were in custody of the bank, the bank rejected this. Complainant could not take CF test of the vehicle in time. Complainant suffered heavy loss and injury due to the negligence of the bank during the course of his employment. Therefore he could not do his duty properly. The taxi car was parked in the shed which caused damage. It could not be run on road for lack of CF test and renewal of insurance paper etc. only due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the Federal Bank Authorities, Kallikkadu Branch. From 2002 onwards the bank adamantly behaved towards the complainant. Therefore complainant could not repay the balance amount and drive the taxi car on the road without CF test. The opposite party bank is only liable for all these troubles due to deficiency in service. The bank filed a suit as O.S 61/2003 before the Sub Court, Nedumangadu and filed E.P 30/2007 before the same court. No proper notice was served, so were set exparte. Now Hon'ble High Court has set aside the ex-parte decree and judgement. While E.P was pending, complainant remitted Rs. 2,50,000/- in the Adalath for settlement. But the Bank went back from settlement. Complainant repaid Rs. 4,23,000/- to the Bank in total. But the bank was not ready for settlement. Therefore the complainant claims Rs. 12,79,000/- as compensation from the opposite party for all his sufferings, losses and injuries due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the bank.
This complaint has been filed on 12.12.2011. On 15.03.2012 complainant has filed an I.A for condoning the delay of 3317 days in filing this complaint. The opposite party has filed their objection and hence the question of limitation was heard.
Opposite party has vehemently contended that the petition to condone the delay is not maintainable and it ought to have been filed along with the complaint. The reason stated by the complainant for the delay of 3317 days is that he was laid up due to Rheumatism. But the opposite party has contended that the complainant in this case was the defendant in OS 61/03 of Sub Court, Nedumangad. The said suit was filed by the Federal Bank Ltd. against the complainant and his brothers, who are the guarantors in the loan transaction. Complainant's brothers are Aloshies and Vincent. Aloshies was working as DTO, KSRTC. Vincent is still working as professor at Govt. Arts College, Thiruvananthapuram. The above three are the defendants in OS 61/03. The above suit was filed as early in 2003. The subject matter was default of loan amount availed by the complainant for purchasing the motor vehicle. In the suit, the complainant was served with summons as early in 2003 itself. Thereafter the complainant and his brothers did not appear. Hence court passed a decree exparte. That the complainant filed restoration during 2003 through IA 788/03 and same dismissed. The subject matter in OS 61/03 and matters in dispute herein are one and the same. Thereafter the decree holder, the complainant herein, was examined before the Sub Court, Nedumangad and warrant was issued to the complainant herein. That the complainant took up the matter before the High Court. Complainant personally appeared before the Sub Court, Nedumangad in OS 61/03 and through lawyer. Complainant filed so many petitions and applications from 2007 onwards and copies of some of them are produced herewith. That even if, the complainant is aggrieved he could have approached this Forum much earlier. Complainant strongly contested OS 61/2003 all along. Hence it is incorrect to say that the complainant was laid up. Complainant got himself examined before Sub Court Nedumangad on 08.10.2010 and hence opposite party contends that the pleading of the complainant that he was laid up cannot be accepted.
We have gone through the documents produced by the parties. It is very pertinent to note that though the complainant has alleged that he was laid up due to Rheumatism, no medical certificates are produced to substantiate the same. Another aspect for consideration is for condoning the delay in filing the complaint, sufficient cause has to be shown. Here the cause of action has occurred before 2002 when the complainant could not take C.F test as alleged in the complaint. The records prove that the bank has initiated a case against the complainant and a decree has been ordered against the complainant and as per the decree only a settlement has been arrived at and accordingly the complainant has made a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the adalath on 21.08.2009, but this payment has been made as a part of settlement and this does not mean that the liability has been acknowledged by the opposite party. The transaction in question has taken place in 2002. The complaint ought to have been filed within the limitation period, but here it has been filed even after unreasonably long period and the claim ought to have been filed within a reasonable time. The apex court has severally held that delay of each day has to be explained, but here the delay has not been explained. In the above circumstance, we are unable to appreciate the delay of 3317 days as no explanation for the delay has been given by the complainant and the reason given for delay in filing the complaint is also not sufficient and properly explained. In the above circumstance, we find that the complaint filed on 12.12.2011 without an application for condonation of delay along with the complaint is manifestly barred by limitation and hence the complaint is dismissed as time barred.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of June 2012.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
