Karnataka

Kolar

CC/77/2018

Sri.Narayana Bhattarachar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Member Secretary,Common Cadre Committee - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.V.Laxmi Narayana

30 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 77 OF 2018

Sri. Narayana Bhattarachar,

S/o. Late A. Srirangachar,

Aged About 66 Years,

No.2009, Muthur Road,

Near Sri Raghavendraswamy

Road, Shidlaghatta-562105.                              ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. D.V. Laxminarayana, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

1) The Member Secretary,

Common Cadre Committee Office,

Land Bank Building, Aluuru

Venkatarao Road, Chamarajapete, 

Bangalore-18.

(Rep. by Sri. S.M.M.)

 

2) District Manager,

Karnataka State Co-operative

Agriculture and Rural Development

Branch, Doom light Circle,

Kolar-563 101.

(In-person)

 

3) The Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Employees Provident

Fund Organization, N.F.U Block,

ITI Campus, Dooravaninagara,

K.R. Puram, Bangalore-16.

(Rep. by Sri. M. Pradeep, Advocate)                                   …. OPPOSITE PARTIES

:: ORDERS ON IA-I ::

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed IA-I Under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and prays to condone the delay.

02.   The complainant has filed affidavit in support of said IA-I and sworn that, from 01.05.1973 to 29.02.2012, he has served at PCA and RD Bank as “D” Group permanent employee and after serving 36 years he was retired on superannuation as Assistant Development Officer.  The complainant after retirement he went to America for two times as his son is working as priest and he stayed there to eke-out his livelihood and he could not file the complaint in time and delay is caused.  The complainant has produced Xerox copy of the passport and prays to allow the said IA in view of the Hon’ble State Commission order in Appeal Nos.415/2008 to 419/2008 produced in C.C. No.68/2018 before this Hon’ble Forum.

 

03.   OP No.1 has filed objection to the said IA and contended that, the complainant is a retired assistant development officer and he joined the service on 01.05.1973 as a Peon for salary of Rs.120/- at PCA & RD Bank Limited, Shidlaghatta and from 01.10.1975 his scale was fixed at Rs.65-2-95.  From 18.10.1976 to 14.12.1976 he remained unauthorized absent and those days are treated as Non salary days.  His increment was postponed for about 77 days and was fixed on 03.01.1978 as the complainant was worked at Gowribidanuru, Shidlaghatta, Chintamani and at Bangalore and paid PF of Rs.6,40,932/- through cheque No.002673, dated: 18.01.2013 and taken the said amount without any objection.  After 06 years 06 months 27 days the complainant has filed this complaint.  The complainant after his retirement went to America twice and stayed there and he has not stated in which year and how many days he has stayed in America and the complainant has not stated sufficient reasons to condone the delay.  The Forum shall not admit the complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arise and prays to dismiss the said IA.

 

04.   OP No.2 has filed his objection to IA No.I similarly to that of the objection filed by the OP No.1 to IA No.I.

 

05.   OP No.3 has filed objection to the said IA No.I and specifically contended that, the complainant has filed this complaint after nine years from the date of leaving the establishment and as per the limitation period under Consumer Protection Act the time for filing the complaint is two years and in the instant case the complaint is filed after nine years of leaving the establishment and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and prays to dismiss the complaint filed by the complaint in the ends of justice. 

06.   Heard arguments of both sides.

07.   Now the points that do arise for our Consideration are that:-

1. Whether the complainant has made out sufficient cause and grounds to allow IA-I as prayed?

 

2. What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT 1:-                Is in the Negative

       

POINT 2:-                As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

09.   POINT 1:-

        The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to issue direction to the OP No.1 to fix the PF pension with two years weightage as per the Provident Fund Act Section 7Q with 12% interest from 01.03.2010 and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.  At the outset it is relevant to state here that, when the case set-out for orders on merits and while going through the file it is observed that, IA No.I is pending and objection was not filed by the OPs then the case was posted for objections to the said IA to decide the said IA before going to the merits of the case.

 

10.   The complainant has filed this IA-I to condone the delay in filing the complaint.  The complainant has filed sworn affidavit in support of the said IA-I and has sworn that, from 01.05.1973 to 29.02.2012, he has served at PCA and RD Bank as “D” Group permanent employee and after serving 36 years he was retired on superannuation as Assistant Development Officer.  The complainant after retirement went to America for two times as his son is working as priest and he stayed there to eke-out his livelihood and he could not file the complaint in time and delay is caused.  The complainant has produced Xerox copy of the passport and prays to allow the said IA.  The complainant has relied the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission vide Appeal No.415/2008 to 419/2008 without production of the copy of the said order and it does not help the complainant to support his case.

 

11.   On the other hand, OP Nos.1 & 2 has specifically contended that, on 18.01.2013 a sum of Rs.6,40,932/- has been paid to the complainant vide cheque No.002673 and the complainant has received the said amount without any objection and there is a delay of six years in filing the complaint and there is no any cause is shown to condone the delay and the complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action arise as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  OP No.3 has also taken up the contention that, the complainant has filed this complaint after nine years from leaving the establishment and time for filing the complaint is two years as per Consumer Protection Act and these OPs prays to dismiss the complaint.  Now it is relevant to state here that, as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action.  Here in this case the cause of action arise on 18.01.2013 when the OP No.1 sent the alleged amount of Rs.6,40,932/- through cheque to the complainant and the complainant has received the said amount without any protest and accepted the said amount and the complaint is to be filed within two years from that date i.e., on 17.01.2015, but the complainant has filed this complaint on 26 09.2018 and there is a delay of about 03 years 08 months in filing the complaint.

 

12.   Further it is relevant to state here that, the said IA-I does not disclose, how many days of delay in filing the complaint.  The complainant has also not explained the day to day delay and not stated sufficient cause and reasons to condone the delay.  The complainant has stated in his affidavit in support of the IA No.I that, after his retirement he went to America twice and stayed there and to that effect he has produced Xerox copy of passport, but mere production of the said document does not help the complainant without production of To and Fro air tickets and the complainant has also not at all stated in his affidavit on which date, on which month and on which year he went to America and how many days he stayed with his son and the complainant has also not at all stated sufficient cause and reasons to condone the said inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the said IA-I is bald in nature and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

 

13.   In this regard, we relay judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2019(3) CPR 482 (NC), wherein his lordship has held that, “it is a settled proposition of law that, condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicant has to set-out the case showing sufficient reasons for not being able to come to the Court Commissions within the stipulated period of limitation”.  Here in this case the complainant has not stated about sufficient cause and reasons for not able to come to the Forum within time and the said application is a bald one.  The said citation is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.  We also relay another citation reported in 2019(2) CPR P-882 of Hon’ble State Commission, wherein his lordship has held that delay cannot be condoned in respect of inordinate delay.  Here in this case the delay is about 03 years 08 months 08 days and there is no satisfactory reason and ground to condone the delay.  The said citation is also attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand to reject the IA No.I.   

14.   Hence under these circumstances as discussed above, the complainant has failed to make out sufficient cause and reasons to condone the delay in filing the complaint and accordingly we answer Point No.1 is in the negative.

15.   POINT 2:-

        In view of our finding on Point 1 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The IA-I dated: 26.09.2018 filed by the complainant Under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed and consequently the complaint filed by the complainant is also dismissed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019)

 

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                            PRESIDENT