Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/35/2021

Mr.Siddappa.S.J. S/o Appajappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary /Manager,The primary Co operative Agricalture and rural Development bank ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Sureshbabu.B

19 Jul 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:29/06/2021

DISPOSED      ON:19/07/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:35/2021

DATED: 19^th July 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B.        PRESIDENT

              Sri. G. SREEPATHI,       B.COM., LL.B.  MEMBER   

               Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.       MEMBER

                                                                 

…COMPLAINANT/S	1. Sri. Siddappa S.J. S/o Appajappa,@ SannaJogappa, Aged about 63 Years. 2. Sri. Jayaramappa S.J. S/o Appajappa, Aged about 60 years Agriculturists, At: Vaddikere Hobli, Aimangala Post, M.D. Kote, Taluk, Hiryur,Chitradurga District, State: Karnataka. (Rep., by Sri. Sureshbabu B. Sangolli, Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	The Secretary/Manager The Primary Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, (PCARD Bank) The Bank functioning under the Co-Operative Societies Act, Branch At Hiriyur, Post and Taluk: Hiriyur-577599, Dist. Chitradurga.

 

Written by Smt. H.N. MEENA, President.

: ORDER ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINT:

1.     The complainants have filed this complaint against Op and prays before this Commission to direct the Op to execute sale deed of land bearing Sy No. 84 measuring 19.38 guntas situated at Yearaballi village, Aimangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, and also Op to execute another sale deed in Re. Sy No.247/1 measuring 14 acres and 23 gunts situate at M.D. Kote Village, Hiriyur Tq., Chitradurga District.

        The brief facts of the complaint are:

2.     Complainant are the sons of late Appajappa that during life time of Appajappa that the Appajappa has been allotted land Bearing sy No. 84 measuring 19.38 guntas situated at Yearaballi village, Hiriyur Tq., Chitradurga District, and also Op to execute another sale deed in Re Sy No.247/1 measuring 14 acres and 23 guntas situate at M.D. Kote Village, Hiriyur Tq., Chitradurga District through bid dated 17/06/1973 and for that complainants father late Appajappa has paid 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 4,250/- and also late Appajappa has paid Rs. 100/- through receipt no. 3551, dated 17/06/1973.  And the auction which was proceeded towards above said properties was Rs. 13, 000/- and same was paid by the purchaser and said amount was kept in suspense account and again on 10/09/1990 Op have received additional amount           Rs. 6,900/- credited to suspense account towards auction deposit and again Rs. 17,000/- and in total Rs. 24,150/- has been paid towards consideration amount paid in between on 17/06/1973 to 10/09/1990.   That the complainants have stated, Op have received additional amount of Rs. 6900/- (credited to suspense) towards auction deposit from late Appajapp S/o Sri. Sanna Jogappa as per receipt No. 500 date 10/09/1990 and the late Appajappa during the life time has repeatedly requested OP to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant father. But it was vain

3.     That the complainants and their father i.e. late Appajappa are in the possession and cultivating the lands stated above from the date of auction and paying land revenue regularly.

4.     That the original bidder late Appajappa was died on 07/11/1995 after his death the complainants have requested the Op to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants. But it was also vain since the Op are avoided to the execute the sale deed. Finally that on 27/10/2020 the complainants have issued legal notice through their counsel to execute sale deed and the complainants are ready to bear the cost of the sale deed. And the Op has sent the reply dated 28/04/2021 and they have refused to execute the sale deed.

5.     On perusal of entire facts of complaint which Cleary discloses that the complaint will not come into purview of this Hon’ble Commission, Since it is  Civil  in  Nature of proceedings and also the cause of action to this complaint will starts from 17/06/1973 the date on which complainants father has entered into an bid for the purchase of the above said lands. And filed this complaint before this Hon’ble Commission on 29/06/2021 and last date of transaction took place on 10/09/1990.

 

6.     Such being the reason, Complainant is not coming under definition of consumer under consumer protection Act 1986

                Towards limitation

1. The cause of action to the above complaint has been arose on 17/6/1973 the date on which the complainants father has entered into purchase bid and again they have issued legal notice to the Op on 27/10/2020 that the complainants and their father Appajappa has never shown their diligence in purchasing above said lands since auction has been conducted on 17/06/1973 and as per the complaint transactions were made out on 29/11/1986, 10/09/1990 but after the date 10/09/1990 the complainants or their father have never tried to make a suit or make any effort in getting the above said lands in their names, that it shows the complainants are their father Appajjappa are not diligent and with this cause of action towards this complaint does not arise since

1.   Condonation of delay is not a matter of right and the applicants has to set out the case showing sufficient reasons for not being able to come to the Commission within the stipulated period of limitation.
2.  The burden is put upon the applicant to show sufficient causes for the delay.
3.  When the parties who were not acted diligently or remain inactive is not entitle for condonation of delay.

The another citation reported in 2012 (4) CPR (NC) New Delhi, it is observed by the Hon’ble National Commission.

The Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Co-Operative Appellant V/s The Special Officer/Joint Registrar, Dharmapuri District, Central Co-Operative Bank Limited and ors., Respondents.

First Appeal No. 182 of 2012 (from the order dated 05/05/2011 in C.C. No. 2/2005 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Chennai)

17, 19 and 21 Co-Operative Bank Account Failure to transfer funds from one account to another-Complaint dismissed by State Commission State Commission observed that there was neither deficiency of service nor complaint was filed in time-As per audit inspection, fact of not crediting amount came to knowledge of applicant on 19/05/2001 and request for granting interest was also rejected on 23/05/2001-Complaint ought to have been filed on or before 23/05/2003 but complaint was filed after 17 months-State Commission rightly observed that appellant-complainant failed to take any step for condonation of inordinate delay and rightly  dismissed complaint as barred by time-Appeal Dismissed.

Result Appeal Dismissed.

Important point

Time-barred Complaint cannot be entertained;

        The citation filed by the complainant counsel i.e

II (2015) CPJ NC page 332 will not applicable to the case on hand.

In this case complainants also were not acted diligently in filing the complaint well in time. Hence point towards condonation of delay does not arise hence this Commission find no sufficient ground to condone the delay.

         7.    Hence as discussed above, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

                                        ORDER

        The Complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable before this commission for adjudication on maintainability and hence the same is rejected.

(Dictated to the stenographer, and typed in the Computer and   transcribed by him, verified and then pronounced in the Open commission by us on this the 19th day of July 2021).

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                        PRESIDENT