Order No.2

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

On perusal of the complaint application along with its annexures it appears that the Bajaj Finance Limited granted personal loan for sum of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rupees One lakh and eleven thousand) only in favour of Mohammad Azad which was payable along with interest by 36 monthly instalments. It is alleged by the complainant Md. Tausif Azad that on 11/09/2020 the opposite party though repaid Rs.1,53,574/- in total but through email dated 11/09/2020 the opposite party estimated that the period of repayment of loan has been extended by way of 42 EMIs showing existing principal loan outstanding dues of Rs.1,33,123/-.

So on 26/05/2023 the complainant sent a letter  to the opposite party through his Ld. Advocate stating the fact of abnormal and inflated demand through the process of extended EMIs as stated above.

According to the complainant the cause of action of the case started from the date of demand letter of the opposite party dated 11/09/2020 but due to covid 19 pandemic and direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding waiver of the period of limitation to June,2022, the delay in filing the case can be condoned.

It is astonishing to note that all papers of Bajaj Finance Limited reveal the name of the borrower once is ‘Mohammad Azad’ one Md. Tausif Azad signed in the loan application.

We do not find any single document that Mohammad Azad and Md. Tausif Azad is one, same and identical person. On the contrary, we find from the cause title of the complaint application that Mohammad Azad is the father of the Md. Tausif Azad.

It has been admitted by the complainant that the cause of action arose on 11/09/2020 but due to pandemic he could not take any steps against the opposite party in time.

Moreover, the complainant referred the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court waiving the period of pandemic in counting the limitation period of the cases and proceedings.

No explanation has been averred by the complainant in his complaint application regarding what prevented him from filing the instant case in the month of July,2022 after lapse of the grace period of limitation as granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation in terms of Section-69 of the C.P. Act,2019. Moreover, we do not find any locus standi of the complainant to file the case.

Having considered the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that the complaint application is not maintainable in law and barred by limitation.

Hence, it is

                                                            O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.