Karnataka

Gadag

CC/32/2014

Veerbhadrayya.S.Bhoosnurmath. R/o Basaveshwar Nagar, Gadag. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The President, Veermaheshwara Co-Op Credit Soceity Ltd. Ctn Mrkt Road Gadag. - Opp.Party(s)

V.G.Hiremath, Gadag

21 May 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OP. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant had deposited the Pigmy amount in the year 2003 and 2004 in OP’s Cooperative Society for which the collector of the Pigmy has issued a Receipts bearing Nos.421, 466, 458, 788, 901, 957, 959, 984, 1093, 1487, 1156, 1241, 1297, 1337, 1398 which totally amounts of Rs.14,100/-. Further, the Complainant was out of station hence he could not continue to deposit amount to his pigmy account.

 

3.      Further, the Complainant submits that on 05.07.2014 he applied to refund the pigmy amount. The OP replied that the amount had been refunded to the Complainant through a cheque bearing No.043123 of Merchant Urban Cooperative Bank on 25.09.2004. The amount had not been credited to the Complainant account. The cheque had been signed by the some other person and encashed, even the cheque had not been directly handed over to the Complainant, hence the Complainant had prayed to order the OP to pay the pigmy amount of Rs.14,100/- along with the interest and compensation of RS.10,000/-.

 

4.      The predecessor on seat registered the Complaint, keeping open the Complaint for maintainability on limitation and notices were ordered as such the OP appears before this Forum through his Advocate and filed his written version of his side.

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP:

The OP had denied the contents of the Complaint made by the Complainant, the OP had stated in his Written Version that the Complainant had received the Pigmy amount of Rs.14,100/- through a cheque which had been encashed. Even after encashment of cheque, the Complainant had registered a false Complaint. Further, the OP had stated that the OP had refunded the amount through a cheque bearing No.043123 dated: 25.09.2004 from Merchant Urban Bank, Gadag for which the Complainant had signed the Voucher for receiving the cheque just to harass the OP, the Complainant had filed a false Complaint. Further, the OP had stated that after receiving the pigmy amount on 25.09.2004 the Complainant had filed this Complaint after delay of 08 years for which the counsel of the Complainant filed an application for the condonation of delay which it is not acceptable, delay cannot be condoned, there is no sufficient cause shown in the I.A. filed by the Complainant. Hence, Complaint may be dismissed in the view of justice. 

 

5.      In background of the above said pleading, the Complainant himself examined before this Forum as CW1. On the other hand, OP filed his written version. On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

 

1.	Whether the Complaint is barred by law of limitation?
2.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – As per the final order.

 

6.      On consideration of pleadings, objections, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:

                

 

R E A S O N S

 7.  POINT NO.1:  The Complainant deposited the pigmy amount in the OP Cooperative Society in the year 2003 and 2004. The Complainant had alleged that the OP had not refunded the pigmy amount of Rs.14,100/- to the Complainant. The OP had contended this matter in his support he had produced the  documents, copy of the cheque and application marked as EX. R1, EX. R2, EX. R2 (a). On carefully scanning the documents, it is crystal clear that the Complainant had signed the documents on 25.09.2004 even the cheque issued by the OP in the name of the Complainant is also on 25.09.2004, the Complainant was well aware that he had deposited the pigmy amount in 2004 and lodged the Complaint before this Forum in 2014 and filed the Application for condonation of delay. The OP filed an Objection to condone the delay of the Complaint. The Complainant had given sufficient time to hear on the said I.A. The Complainant had not shown any interest to show the sufficient cause for late filing, this Complaint nor came forward to clarify the same before this Forum. In the said I.A., Complainant stated that Complainant is now residing at Bangalore, but he is oftenly visiting to the OP’s-Office and he is regularly enquiring about his pigmy amount. Since it is clear that Complainant is knowingly delayed file this Complaint.  Hence, there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. We relied upon a citation in I (2016) CPJ 48 (NC), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (Ludhiana Improvement Trust & Anr. V/s Basant Lal). The important point reads as under:

     “(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24A, 21 (b) – Limitation – Delay of 255 days – Condonation – Sufficient cause not shown – Delay not condoned”.   

   Hence, we answer to Point No.1 in affirmative.

  8.     POINT NO.2: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above point, we proceed to pass a following:  

//ORDER//

        1.   The Complaint is barred by limitation, hence case is dismissed. Parties have to bear their own costs.

2.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 21^st day of May, 2016)

 

 

Member

Member

President