1.       This appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 06.01.2020 of the State Commission in complaint no. 864 of 2019.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘complainant co.’) and for the respondents no. 1 and no. 2 (the ‘UCO bank’). We have also perused the record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 06.01.2020 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       Relevant facts of the case have been succinctly captured by the State Commission in para 2 of its impugned Order, which is being reproduced below for reference:

2.         Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant company is maintaining its account in OP no.1-bank. The complainant company had been dealing with one Mansa Print & Publishers Limited and had been supplying goods relating to the business of complainant and Mansa Print & Publishers Limited were having their bank account in IDBI Bank Limited, Chandigarh. The IDBI Bank Limited drawn a documentary letter of credit no.110143ILCU00794 dated 24.12.2011 amounting to Rs.25 lakhs on behalf of its client Mansa Print & Publishers Limited in favour of beneficiary the complainant. As per terms of LC, original invoice, two copies of value of goods, original MTR should have been submitted to the Bank of complainant. Complainant company issued a bill of exchange dated 25.12.2011 indicating the date of invoice, number of invoice and valuation papers of goods and a complete set of documents, as referred in LC, were handed over to OP no.1 on 26.12.2011 and the LC was discounted by OP no.1 on the same day. The amount of LC after deducting the interest of 90 days was credited in the account of the complainant company. The above referred documents submitted by complainant company were required to be sent to IDBI Bank by UCO bank on or before 30.01.2012 i.e. before expiry of LC, but those documents were kept by OP no.1 till 30.03.2012 and dispatched to IDBI Bank on 30.03.2012, which were received by IDBI Bank on 30.01.2012. Thereafter, the documents were dispatched by IDBI Bank to M/s Mansa Print & Publishers Limited on 05.04.2012 for their acceptance, but ultimately LC was rejected with the reasons "LC Expired" vide letter dated 10.04.2012. The IDBI returned the document on 11.04.2012 to OP no.1 bank and ultimately UCO Bank again collected Rs.25 lakhs from the account of complainant company along with interest of Rs.52,760/-. There was no fault on the part of complainant company, as stated above. Many letters were written to OPs by complainant company in this regard, but OPs replied to only one letter, vide reply dated 02.02.2018, Ex.C10. The complainant company is now demanding its money in view of mistakes of OPs, but they are refusing to pay back the money to it. The complainant relied upon various letters Ex.C-11 to C-15, which were written to OPs in this regard, but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint.

4.       The complainant co. had supplied goods to one Mansa Print & Publishers Limited (‘Mansa Print’). IDBI bank drew a letter of credit (‘LC’) dated 24.12.2011 in favour of the complainant co. amounting to Rs. 25 lakh on behalf of the said Mansa Print which was its customer. At the relevant time the complainant co. maintained its account with UCO bank. UCO bank discounted the LC on 26.12.2011 and credited the amount into the complainant co.’s account. Subsequently the LC was not honoured by IDBI bank. UCO bank then recovered the amount along with the interest from the complainant co.’s account on 30.04.2012. The grievance of the complainant co. was that the UCO bank wrongly recovered the said amount. It filed a complaint before the State Commission belatedly on 02.12.2019. The State Commission did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, and dismissed the complaint on limitation.

5.       The State Commission’s appears to have passed a well-appraised and reasoned order, aptly dealing with the issues germane to the matter.

The examination of the aspect of delay as contained in paras 7, 8, 9 and 17 of its impugned Order is being reproduced below for reference:

7. The present complaint was filed on 02.12.2019 by the complainant company without any application for condonation of delay, as the cause of action accrued on 30.04.2012, when OPbank recovered the amount from complainant company. Learned counsel for complainant requested for a date on 05.12.2019 for preliminary hearings and the case was fixed for 01.01.2020 simply for preliminary hearing. Thereafter, he filed an application for condonation of delay on 20.12.2019 in the registry, which seems to be an after thought. In this application, the applicant has not mentioned the period of delay and the date of accrual of cause of action. The complainant company had written letter dated 06.03.2013 to OP-bank (Annexure-I) after a gap of more than 10 months with regard to refund of amount, but OP-bank did nothing. Thereafter, on 16.06.2014 (after a gap of more than one year of first letter) complainant company had again written letter, Annexure-J, for refund, but OP-bank did not take any action. After a gap of one and half year of second letter Annexure-J, complainant company had again written a letter dated 05.02.2016 to OP-bank for refund, but to no effect. The complainant relied upon letter dated 18.01.2015 Ex.C-14 and 16.12.2017 Ex.C-13 written by complainant to OP no.1 for refund of amount. It is pertinent to mention that even on these letters, no date of receipt of above letters has been mentioned. Moreover, the OP-bank did not reply to the above letters and even then complainant company did not take any action promptly to file the consumer complaint. As per record of the case, the cause of action had accrued on 30.04.2014, when OP-bank deducted the amount from the account of complainant-company and this fact was in the knowledge of complainant. The submission of letters for refund and any other such representation made to OP bank will not extend the limitation in filing the complaint. Hence, I reject this plea of complainant.

8. Further the complainant has relied upon certificate Annexure-A to the effect that Director of complainant company remained under depression disorder from 13.08.2012 till 04.12.2016. I have perused this certificate. This certificate has been issued by a Private Doctor Rupesh Chaudhary on 04.12.2016 and not by a renowned hospital or a government hospital. Moreover, the complainant has failed to describe the reason or for what purpose this certificate has been issued to him on 04.12.2016. This certificate is also not supported by any affidavit of concerned doctor. As such an adverse inference is to be drawn that these type of certificates are easy to procure from private practitioners/doctors. The complainant further relied upon copy of a cremation slip of Smt. Shanti Devi dated 15.02.2015 and medical record of Ashwani Arora, Director of complainant company dated 09.10.2015 and FIR dated 09.12.2017. On the one side, the complainant company has given the reference of medical condition of its Director Ashwani Arora and on the other hand, it has relied upon letters dated 06.03.2013 Annexure-I, Annexure-J dated 16.06.2014, Annexure-K dated 05.02.2016, Ex.C-13 letter dated 16.12.2017 and Ex.C-4 dated 18.01.2015 written by its Director Ashwani Arora to OP-Bank. Ex.C-15 is letter dated 16.07.2019 written by its Director to General Manager of RBI, Chandigarh. Moreover, its Director also lodged FIR No.0209 dated 09.12.2017 with Police Station, Kotwali under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC. The above said documents show that Director of complainant company, remained busy in corresponding with OPbank and RBI and also lodged FIR since the date of accrual of cause of action, but he failed to file a consumer complaint in this regard before the appropriate Fora. The complainant is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956, vide Ex.C-2 and it has Directors and also officers for running it. Vide Ex.C-3, resolution dated 15.11.2019, the complainant company authorized Ashwani Arora, Managing Director to pursue the case, but the complainant company remained silent and slept over the matter since 30.04.2012 in authorizing any officer of the company to pursue the case against OPs before appropriate Fora.

9. From perusal of record, no cogent reasons and grounds have come forward to explain the huge delay of more than six years in filing the complaint. Chain of sequence of events, which caused the huge delay of more than six years in filing the complaint, has not been described in order to co-relate the various events which allegedly took place from time to time. The applicant has adopted a careless and casual approach in filing the application. The law is settled that the delay can be condoned when it has been properly explained, but the delay due to casual approach cannot be condoned, at the asking of the applicant.

17. In view of above discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court and Punjab & Haryana Court, Chandigarh, it is clear that the delay has to be explained properly and sufficient cause for causing delay must be disclosed and the delay caused on account of dilatory tactics, inaction and casual approach cannot be condoned. The law does not come to the help of those persons/companies who slumber over their rights. A party should not sleep over his legal rights and should avail the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, I am not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of more than six years in filing the complaint. The application of condonation of delay is hereby dismissed as applicant has failed to explain each days delay with sufficient cause. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act, are summary in nature and the matters are to decided in time bound manner and as such the above inordinate delay in filing the complaint without giving sufficient cause for such delay would defeat the ends of justice and cannot be condoned. Thus, I do not M.A.No.2704 of 2019 In/and C.C.No.864 of 2019 14 find any justifiable ground to condone the huge delay of more than six years in filing the complaint.

6.       Leaned counsel for the complainant co. submits that the cause of action arose on 30.04.2012 when UCO Bank wrongly debited the amount from its account. It filed the complaint on 02.12.2019. Learned counsel admits that no civil action was taken by the complainant co. against the one Mansa Print to whom it had supplied the goods or against IDBI bank which had drawn the LC but subsequently did not honour it. He submits that on 09.12.2017 an FIR was lodged by the complainant co. against Mansa Print in respect of various transactions including the instant one and further that the matter was later on compromised between the complainant co. and Mansa Print. Learned counsel dwells on the health condition of the director of the complainant co., bereavement in the form of demise of his mother and financial problems of the complainant co. in order to explain the delay in filing the complaint. Submission is that sufficient cause to condone the delay was forthcoming and as such the State Commission ought to have condoned the delay.

7.       Learned counsel for the UCO Bank submits that UCO bank had committed no wrong. It had dutifully discounted the LC on 26.12.2011 in the complainant’s favour. However when later on the IDBI bank did not honour the LC it recovered the amount from the complainant co. on 30.04.2012. Even though the complainant co. has no case on merit against UCO bank, which was simply discharging its routine functions of a banker, the complaint was heavily barred by limitation. The cause of action arose on 30.04.2012 when the alleged wrongful debit was made. The period of limitation provided under section 24A(1) of the Act 1986 is 02 years from the date on which the cause of action arose. However the complaint was filed on 02.12.2019, more than 07 years and 07 months from the date on which the cause of action arose. As such it was delayed by over 05 years and 07 months. Learned counsel further submits that sufficient cause to condone the delay under section 24A(2) of the Act 1986 was not forthcoming. Writing letters as and when, and laments of health, bereavement, financial problems, cannot constitute good ground to condone the huge delay of over 05 years and 07 months. Learned counsel also submits that significantly the complainant co. took no civil action against Mansa Prints to whom it had supplied the goods or against IDBI bank which had not honoured the LC. He also submits that the banking ombudsman too dismissed the complainant co.’s complaint against UCO bank. Submission is that the overall conduct of the complainant co. gives a bad air since it admittedly did not take any civil action against Mansa Print or IDBI bank and even the penal action of FIR against Mansa Print was thereafter compromised between the parties. Neither Mansa Print nor IDBI bank was made opposite party in the complaint. Learned counsel argues that the State Commission has appreciated the facts and evidence in the correct perspective and has rightly dismissed the complaint on limitation.

8.       Even if we want to lean in favour of the complainant for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the complaint and prefer that the complaint be decided on merits rather than be rejected at the threshold stage, but even a liberal exercise of such kind will require at least some semblance of a plausible explanation being proffered to bridge up the significant hiatus after which the complaint has been filed. Here, but, the grounds being offered appear to be wholly inadequate if not mendacious. The powers which have been conferred to condone the delay have got to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily and certainly not at will either whimsically or capriciously. The discretion to be exercised in such matters is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is essentially a legal exercise and has to be lawfully harnessed with judicious discipline. The object and purpose behind the law of limitation cannot be either swung into oblivion or be ignored with apathy. A complete disregard of the law of limitation will eventually frustrate and defeat the salutary purpose which inspires the enactment in this regard wherever provided. In the present case we do not see even a semblance of an explanation which may constitute a good ground to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay was palpably without worth or substance, sufficient cause to condone the delay of more than 05 years and 07 months was not at all forthcoming.

9.       As such we find no good reason to take a different view of the matter than what has been taken by the State Commission.

10.     We may however make it explicit that the present matter related to the grievance of the complainant co. against the UCO bank alone, and it had nothing to do with the grievance(s) if any the complainant co. may have or have had against Mansa Print or IDBI bank. Neither of them was even impleaded as opposite party. We therefore had no occasion to advert or adjudicate upon the right of the complainant co. to bring action under law against any of them if it so chooses to do.

11.    The appeal stands dismissed.

12.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel within 03 days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.