CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER Date of filing: 16/08/2017
CC/119/2017
P. Sethumadhavan
S/o. P.A. Mannadiar(Late),
Pallath House,
Thirunarayanapuram Post,
Thiruvazhiyode, Ottapalam Taluk. : Complainant
Palakkad District .
(By Adv. A.V. Ravi)
Vs
The Manager
M/s. Indian Bank,
Kandath Sudevan Road, : Opposite Party
Palakkad - 678 001
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President
Complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The averment in the complaint is that the complainant had availed a loan from opposite party by mortgaging original document No. 562/1970 of SRO Cherpulassery with the opposite party. After closing the loan, even after the repeated demands opposite party did not return the original document to the complainant. Then the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 21/11/2016. Till this date opposite party did not return the document to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Heard on admission.
During the course of hearing complainant filed IA 289/17 to condone the delay of 161 days in filing the complaint. On going through the application it is seen that the loan was closed on 3/3/2015. But no such pleading was made in the complaint. More over no sufficient reason was made out for the delay caused. Hence the IA dismissed.
On perusal of complaint and documents produced, it is found that after taking the loan no transaction has been taken place between the complainant and opposite party till the date of sending legal notice i.e, on 21/11/2016. In the complaint complainant submitted that the cause of action arose on 21/11/2016. In Champaben Atmaram Thakron Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr., Hon’ble National Commission held that by sending legal notice or by making representation the period of limitation cannot be extended 1(2015) CPJ 131 (NC).
The complaint should have been filed within two years from the date of closing the loan.
Sec 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which prescribes the period of limitation for admitting a complaint reads as under.
“The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen”.
In V.N.Shrikande (Dr) V Anita Sena Fernandas IV 2010 CPJ 27 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Sec 24 A (1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. It was further observed that the Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The Apex court held that if the complaint per se barred by time and the does not seek condonation of delay under Sub Section 24 (2), the Consumer Forums will have no option but to dismiss the same.
Hon’ble Apex court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V National Insurance Co. Ltd .and another (III 2009 CPJ 75 SC) held that it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of Sec 24 A and give effect to it . If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the Forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
In the above circumstances we are of the view that complaint is barred by limitation. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without going to the merits of the case.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 2nd day of September 2017.
Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
