The Special Sale Officer,Kollam District Co-operative BankLtd.,Kollam V/S Shahul Hameed,S/o.Muhammed Kunju,Kizhakkemannarazhikathu Veedu,Muttakkavu,Nedumpana,Kollam - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Kollam

CC/07/319

Shahul Hameed,S/o.Muhammed Kunju,Kizhakkemannarazhikathu Veedu,Muttakkavu,Nedumpana,Kollam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Special Sale Officer,Kollam District Co-operative BankLtd.,Kollam - Opp.Party(s)

S.Navas

14 May 2008

ORDER

C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691 013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/319

Shahul Hameed,S/o.Muhammed Kunju,Kizhakkemannarazhikathu Veedu,Muttakkavu,Nedumpana,Kollam						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Special Sale Officer,Kollam District Co-operative BankLtd.,Kollam						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President 2. RAVI SUSHA : Member 3. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By SRI.K. VIJAYKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is an application for hearing the question of limitation as a preliminary issue. The averments in the affidavit accompanying the petition are that the petitioner/opp.parties is executing an award passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court U/S. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act that if the complainant had any grievances against the award he ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal concerned, that even after the expiry of 4 year the Complainant/Respondent did not file any appeal and thus that award has become final, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Since there is other Forum for challenging the award, that the cause of action for this complaint has arisen on 4.8.2004 but the complaint is filed on 8.10.2007 after a period of 2 year and hence this complaint is barred by limitation and that therefore this complaint may be dismissed. The Respondent/Complainant despite going several opportunities did not file any objection to the I.A. The point for consideration is whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not? Point: At the very outset it is to be pointed out that the only prayer in the complaint is to grant an injunction restraining the opp.parties from initiating Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant for which this Forum has no jurisdiction. The other contention of the petitioner/opp.party is that this complaint is barred by limitation. The cause of action for the complaint is the award dt. 25.10.2003 passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court and the demand notice dated 4.8.2004. The period of limitation for filing a complaint before the Forum U/S 24 A is 2 years. There is no prayer in the complaint for condonation of delay. No separate petition is also filed for this purpose. In these circumstances this complaint filed on 8.10.2007 is clearly barred by limitation and as such it is not maintainable. Point found accordingly. In the result the I.A. is allowed and the complaint is dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. No costs. Dated this the 14th day of May, 2008.

By SRI.K. VIJAYKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is an application for hearing the question of limitation as a preliminary issue. The averments in the affidavit accompanying the petition are that the petitioner/opp.parties is executing an award passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court U/S. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act that if the complainant had any grievances against the award he ought to have filed appeal before the Tribunal concerned, that even after the expiry of 4 year the Complainant/Respondent did not file any appeal and thus that award has become final, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Since there is other Forum for challenging the award, that the cause of action for this complaint has arisen on 4.8.2004 but the complaint is filed on 8.10.2007 after a period of 2 year and hence this complaint is barred by limitation and that therefore this complaint may be dismissed. The Respondent/Complainant despite going several opportunities did not file any objection to the I.A. The point for consideration is whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not? Point: At the very outset it is to be pointed out that the only prayer in the complaint is to grant an injunction restraining the opp.parties from initiating Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant for which this Forum has no jurisdiction. The other contention of the petitioner/opp.party is that this complaint is barred by limitation. The cause of action for the complaint is the award dt. 25.10.2003 passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court and the demand notice dated 4.8.2004. The period of limitation for filing a complaint before the Forum U/S 24 A is 2 years. There is no prayer in the complaint for condonation of delay. No separate petition is also filed for this purpose. In these circumstances this complaint filed on 8.10.2007 is clearly barred by limitation and as such it is not maintainable. Point found accordingly. In the result the I.A. is allowed and the complaint is dismissed as the same is barred by limitation. No costs. Dated this the 14th day of May, 2008.

......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President
......................RAVI SUSHA : Member
......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member