RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.1642 of 2003

Anand Kumar Singh s/o Sri B.N. Singh,

R/o House No.36/37, Chandra Vihar Colony,

Lakhanpur, District: Kanpur.                         ….Appellant.

Versus

1- Union Bank of India, Swaroop Nagar Branch,

     Kanpur Nagar through its Branch Manager.

2- Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Kanpur

     Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar through its

     Branch Manager.                                  …Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

None appeared.

Date  27.4.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.5.2003, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case No.374 of 2000, the appellant Sri Anand Kumar Singh has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable loss.

          None appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing on 18.3.2015. Since the appeal was pending for

(2)

more than 12 years for disposal, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act 68 of 1986, we preferred to decide the appeal on the basis of evidence available on record.            

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellant/complainant had a Savings Bank Account bearing no.1541 in the Union Bank of India, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur in which he allegedly had a balance of about Rs.90,000.00. The respondent Union Bank of India restrained the appellant from operating the aforesaid account on the ground that he had introduced M/s Legend Leathers who on the basis of the said introduction had availed credit facilities from the Bank and had not repaid the same. It has not been denied that the appellant had not introduced M/s Legend Leathers to the Bank and on the basis of his introduction and terms and conditions, the said Legend Leathers had been provided credit facilities. It has further been alleged that on 21.2.2000, the appellant issued a cheque bearing no.92685 for Rs.5,000.00 which was dishonoured with the remark "Account under Bank's Lien". Consequently, complaint case no.374 of 2000 was filed for redressal of his grievances and compensation for deficiency in service.

The complaint was rejected by the Ld. DCDRF on 26.5.2003 on the ground that the cause of action arose on 23.5.1992 when the cheque was dishonoured whereas the complaint was filed on 2.6.2000 i.e. after a gap of more

(3)

than 8 years although the period of limitation under Section 24(A) of the Act, 68 of 1996 was only two years. Furthermore, the payment was withheld under the terms and conditions which the parties had mutually agreed. Admittedly, the appellant had introduced M/s Legend Leathers to the Bank and on the basis of the terms and conditions relating to introduction of the parties, the Bank had given M/s Legend Leathers certaincredit facilities. It has not been denied that the said M/s Legend Leathers failed to repay the loan taken by it. Consequently, the Bank, under terms and conditions mutually agreed upon, stopped payment on the ground that the account was under Bank's Lien and consequently, the cheque of Rs.5,000.00 was dishonoured on 23.5.1992. There is no irregularity or illegality in it. The cause of action arose on 23.5.1992 when the cheque was dishonoured but the complaint was filed on 2.6.2000 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years whereas the period of limitation is only two years under Section 24(A) of the Act, 68 of 1986. The Forum below duly considered all these facts, circumstances and evidence on record before holding that the complaint was meritless and was also barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the same. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.  

(4)

ORDER

The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4