DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 17.09.2021
CC/146/2021
Rajesh A.J - Complainant
S/o Jayakumar
Aranganpallam House,Kuttippallam
Thekkedesam Post, Nallepilly,
Palakkad- 678 553.
(By Adv. Shanmughanandan)
Vs
The manager - Opposite Party
Indel Money,
Palakkad Town Branch
M-5,Busness Centre , Near Head Post Office
Palakkad- 678 001.
(By Adv.Suseel M.Menon )
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complaint averment is that the complainant pledged some of his gold ornaments with the opposite party on 25.08.2015. The applicable rate of interest as per their agreement was 10% and the opposite party charged excess interest when the complainant approached them to close the loan on 04.08.2016. However he closed the loan on 04.08.2016 on payment of the amount demanded by the opposite party. Aggrieved by the charging of excess amount by the opposite party, he filed this complaint. The delay in filing the complaint was due to the out-break of Covid-19 pandemic and the Lockdown followed by it and he prayed for condoning the delay.
2. Registered notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite
party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The opposite party contended that the complaint is prima facie
not maintainable as it has been filed after the expiry of limitation period
and no sufficient reason is mentioned for the delay.
They admit that the complainant availed 3 gold loans on 25.08.20215 by pledging his gold ornaments. The applicable interest rate, loan tenure and terms and conditions were mentioned in the loan documents. The complainant had signed the pawn document after understanding the terms and conditions and did not raise any complaint during the loan tenure regarding their deficiency in service. He closed the loan on 04.08.2016 on payment of the amount as per their agreement. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. After pleadings, main points arising for adjudication are framed. Preliminary issue to be decided in this case is “Whether this complaint is barred by limitation?”. Both parties were heard on the question of limitation and it was taken for orders.
5. It can be seen from the pleadings that the complainant availed gold
loans on 25.08.2015 and he closed the loans on 04.08.2016.
Cause of action in this case arose on 04.08.2016, when the loan was
closed.
The complainant also stated that he sent a Lawyer’s notice to the
opposite party intimating his grievance on 11.08.2016 and they had sent
a reply notice on 24.08.2016.
The period of limitation for filing a consumer complaint is two years
from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.
Here the cause of action for filling the complaint starts on
04.08.2016, when the amount allegedly been due and on 24.08.2016
when the claim was rejected by the opposite party. So the complaint
has to be filed within two years from this date and the period ends on
24.08.2018. But this complainant was filed on 17.09.2021.
6. As per sub-section (2) of sec.69, of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019, a complaint can be entertained after the period specified in
sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the Commission that he had
sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
In this case the complainant had stated that he could not file the
complaint in time due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown followed by it. But it is pertinent to note that pandemic and lockdown happened from March 2019 onwards. So the reason stated by the complainant for delay in filing the complaint is not acceptable.
Hence the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation
prescribed by the C P Act and the complainant has not brought out
sufficient reason for condonation of the delay.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of July, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: NIL
