DOF.11/01/2011
DOO.18/08/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member
Dated this, the 18th day of August 2011
CC/15/2011
Vellarackal Abraham
P.O.Edavaramba, Pulingome Vilalge,
Cherupuzha. Complainant
1. Secretary,
Taliparamba Primary Agricultural
And Rural Development Bank.
Perumba, Payyannur. Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
Heard the counsel for the parties. The complaint is filed for refund of `65,000 with interest. The case of the complainant is that he had availed an amount of `67200 from the opposite party Bank. The failure on the part of opposite party virtually lead to multiply the debt of complainant. The sanctioned amount was not fully released to complainant and thereby put him great financial difficulties. Complainant could not repay the amount ignoring the actual difficulties suffered by the complainant. Opposite party put the pledged property for auction sale and bid for `1,27,000.So he was compelled to raise an amount of `1,50,000 more to clear the liability to get the property back. The sale of the property was made after releasing the title deeds from the bank on 2.12.2006 and cleared the financial burden. The loss of the residential house and the property resulted in a heavy mental shock to complainant. His physical and mental condition deteriorated drastically coupled with financial difficulties. So that he could not pursue with this case. There is 769 days delay in filing the case. The complainant could not prefer the complaint in time only because of his financial incapacities and worse mental and physical state of affairs.
Opposite party vehemently opposed the averment of the complainant and contended that the above complaint ought to have filed on or before 9.11.2008. But complainant filed this complaint on 10.1.2011 with a delay of 2 years and 2 months.
However, complainant admitted there is 769 days delay. The reason for delay stated by the complainant is financial incapacities and worse mental and physical state of affairs. We have carefully considered the grounds set out by the complainant for the delay in filing the complaint. The financial difficulties cannot be considered as a reasonable ground for the delay in filing the complaint before the Forum. What is the financial burden the complainant intended to be made for the purpose of filing the complaint is not detailed. It is difficult to believe that complainant was not able to file the complaint due to financial incapacity. Complainant forgets himself that he is living in a modern society having great tradition of family system. The very purpose of the consumer protection act is to save the poor consumers. Common people are aware that conducting case before consumer Forum is a matter of nominal expense. Hence the averment that delay caused in filing complaint due to financial stringency cannot be accepted at all. Put it in another angle, complainant did not detailed how much amount he required to meet to file the complaint and his practical difficulties to raise that amount. It seems complainant was not serious and reasonable in setting this reason as a ground for the delay of more than 769 days.
The second reason stated by the complainant is that the state of affair or mental and physical condition was not favourable to file the complaint in time. Complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he had been mentally and physically in such a critical condition putting him incapacitated for such long time to take initiative to file a complaint before the Forum.
Complainant has not stated when does the cause of action arise in his delay condonation petition. In complaint also he has not stated when the cause of action arises. Whether it is knowingly or not complainant is legally bound to state when the cause of action does arose. Complaint does not contain the date of auction sale or date of releasing of the title deed.
The complainant availed loan on 19.2.1998. The property of the complainant sold in public auction on 9.6.2005. Complainant paid the amount and property reconveyed to the complaint on 10.11.2006. Complaint filed on 11.1.2011. Since the entire transaction has come to an end with the release of property on 10.11.2006 the complaint is expected to be filed on or before 9.11.2008. There is thus, delay of about more than two years. We have carefully perused the records and are in agreement that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The delay cannot be condoned except for very good reasons which the present case in hand are not disclosing sufficient ground to condone the delay in question. Hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Complaint too is dismissed being barred by limitation.
Sd/- President Sd/- Member Sd/- Member
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
