DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 15th day of September 2010 .

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.108/2010

Vijaya alias Bindu

D/o. Muthu

Thundathil Veedu

Kavilppadu

Palakkad Taluk

Palakkad - Complainant

(Adv. John John)

Vs

1. The Manager

Manappuram Finance Ltd

Vyapara Bhavan

Manjakkulam Road

Palakkad – 6787 014.

2. M/s. Manappuram General

Finance and Leasing Ltd

Rep. By its Manager

Valappad (P.O)

Thrissur – 680 567 - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H, President.

Complaint coming up for hearing on admission, the forum deliver the following.

Complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not returning the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant. It is submitted that when the ornaments was in the custody of the 1^st opposite party, a Police case registered stating that some of the items of the pledged ornaments were theft properties.

Complainant further submits that on conclusion of the trial, she was acquitted by the Honorable Judicial First Class Magistrate Court on 05/10/2007 and the ornaments was released to the 1^st Opposite party. Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite party several times for getting the ornaments, but opposite parties demanded dues and interest for the

- 2 -

period during which the ornaments were in Court custody. Complainant issued a registered lawyer notice to both Opposite parties, calling upon 1^st Opposite party to return the ornaments for which 2^nd Opposite party alone replied stating false contentions. Hence complaint is filed for getting back the ornaments by accepting the principal amount and interest excluding the interest for the period for which the said ornaments were in Court custody and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

Matter was posted for hearing on admission regarding limitation. Heard the complainant.

As per the complaint itself the Honourable Judicial First Class Magistrate Court has acquitted the complainant on 05/10/2007. Hence cause of action is said to arose on 05/10/2007. Lawyer notice is stated to be issued on 21/05/2009 to both parties which is nearly 1 ½ years after the cause of action has arisen. Present complaint is filed on 28/08/2010 nearly 3 years form the date of cause of action. As per the Consumer Protection Act, Complaint is to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. At the time of hearing, complainant orally submitted that a delay condonation application will be filed. So far no application is seen to be filed and hence was taken for orders.

We are of the view that complaint is barred by limitation Under Section 24A(1) of Consumer Protection Act and hence without going into the merits of the case, complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th day of September 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

Date of filing: 28/08/2010

Date of fair copy: 16/09/2010