Date of Filing: 23.03.2020
Date of Order: 29.06.2020
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 29th DAY OF JUNE 2020
PRESENT
SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., …… PRESIDENT
SRI. B.M. NAGARAJA, B.A., LLB., ….. MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 14 OF 2020
Sri. Venkatachalapathi,
S/o. Ramanjinappa,
Major, R/at: Malledepalli Village,
Somayajalahalli Post, Srinivaspur Taluk. …. COMPLAINANT.
(Rep. by Sri. N.Srinivasagowda, Advocate)
- V/s –
1) The President,
Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,
Head Office, No.32, Nandakanallu Road,
Gandhinagara, Belary.
2) The Manager,
Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,
Head Office, M.B. Road,
Kolar Town, Kolar.
3) The Manager,
Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,
Smayajalahalli Branch,
Srinivaspur Taluk. …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY
BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint against OPs and prays to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, mental agony, financial loss, legal notice, etc., along with interest at 18% from the date of complaint and direct the OP No.3 to issue NOC and grant such other reliefs as deems fit in the ends of justice and equity.
02. Heard arguments of the counsel for the complainant and perused the documents produced by the complainant.
03. On perusal of the complaint it revealed that, the complainant had availed loan from OP No.3 on 26.04.2007 for purchasing of goods tempo 407 and obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. Due to repair of the said vehicle the complainant was unable to pay the loan installments regularly. The complainant has agreed to pay the entire loan amount of Rs.1,87,460/- to OP No.3 on 16.07.2012 as full and final settlement and has settled the amount by cash and even to this date the OP No.3 had not issued the NOC in spite of approaching the OP No.3. The complainant has issued legal notice to OPs on 03.01.2019 through RPAD requesting to issue NOC but went in vain.
04. On perusal of the above material facts it is no doubt true that, the complainant purchased goods tempo 407 by availing loan of Rs.4,00,000/- with OP No.3 on 26.04.2007 and finally the complainant settled the matter by paying a sum of Rs.1,87,460/- on 16.07.2012, but the OP No.3 has not issued NOC to the complainant and the complainant has issued legal notice on 03.01.2019. In this regard it is relevant to state here that, as per Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the consumer complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Here in this case the cause of action arose when the complainant has purchased the goods tempo 407 on 26.04.2007 and the complainant has settled the matter on 16.07.2012 and issued legal notice on 03.01.2019. The above said facts clearly goes to show that, the complaint is barred by limitation and mere issuance of legal notice does not give fresh cause of action. The complainant would not had been waited for so long. In this regard we relay judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in 2011(4) PCJ Page-114 and 2016 (1) CPJ 190 NC.
05. Hence as discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as it is barred by time and the said complaint is to be dismissed in limine. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
01. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as barred by time.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29th DAY OF JUNE 2020)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
