The case of the complainant in brief is that  the complainant purchased few Unit Certificates from the OPs under the Unit Scheme, 1964. Accordingly, Unit Trust of India issued Unit Certificates on condition to refund with bonus units with its value. The complainant purchased the said certificates in his name and in the name of his wife Smti. Anjali Routh jointly so that he or his wife or the survivor of them shall be entitled to get its benefit. The following are the Unit Certificates which the complainant purchased.

                                              Total amount receivable about Rs.60,000/-

The OP provided  the I/D No. to the complainant  as I/D No.3373038, but when all the Unit Certificates got matured and the complainant demanded the maturity value of the same since 2003 over telephone and also visited personally  but the OP did not pay the maturity value / benefit of those UTI Certificated in spite of repeated request and demands. Finding no other alternative, the complainant wrote a letter dated 06-04-05 to OP No.1 asking the reason for non-payment against the maturity value of the Unit Certificates but the OPs did not respond. The complainant himself went several times to the Office of the OP No.1 situated at Guwahati for making an enquiry and came to know that all of his UTI Certificates had been erroneously consolidated with another I/D No.23796147 in the name of Sri Sumit Ghosh of Orissa. The complainant again wrote a letter to OPs on 05-07-05 against which,  OPs replied  that the OP will be able to reinstate the Unit of the complainant only on receipt of the refund from Sri Sumit Ghosh. The complainant made several correspondences with the OPs vide letter dated 19-11-05, 06-01-06 and so forth but all are in vain. Finally, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 20-04-06 against the OPs to which OP No.2 made a formal reply intimating that they are trying to recover the invested amount from Sumit Ghosh which was erroneously consolidated. The complainant could not recover the invested amount including bonus for no fault of him, which cause much harassment both physically and mentally since 2003. This act of the OPs are no doubt deficiency in the service due to their negligence for which, the complainant suffered immense loss, torture, and harassment. Hence, the complainant files this case with prayer to direct the OPs to refund the entire amount of investment along with the benefits under the captioned scheme since the date of investment of the Unit Certificates along with interest, also prayed to pass order directing OPs to pay travelling expenses which the complainant made from Duliajan to Guwahati, also prayed to pay compensation and cost of the litigation.

After registering the case notices were issued to all the OPs to which all the OPs filed written statement stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The complaint is barred by limitation as per provision of section 24(A) of the C.P. Act, 1986 because the complaint had to be file within two years from 2003 whereas, the complainant filed the  case in the year  2007 that is after lapse of four years. The OPs further submitted that the complainant has not filed the complaint against the necessary parties that Sumit Ghosh. The OPs again stated that while consolidating the investor I/D of Mr. Ajit Kumar Routh into one I/D, the said I/D was  erroneously consolidated in the name of Mr. Sumit Ghosh in his I/D due to some technical reason. Accordingly, 5617.304 units pertaining to Mr. Ajit Kumar Rough were re-purchased  and the amount was encashed by Mr. Sumit Ghosh. As such, the OP prays to implead the name of Sumit Ghosh to deposit the amount. The OPs submitted that the mistake was purely unintentional and no fault of them and hence prayed to dismiss the case against them.

In this case complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as  14(fourteen) documents in support of his case. on the other hand, the OPs have examined Sri Bal Govind Shah, Chief Representative of UTI, Dibrugarh and exhibited 2 (two) documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

Both the parties submitted their written argument.

    DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

Upon going through the evidence and documents furnished by both the parties it is found that the Unit Certificates acquired by the complainant was matured in the year 2003 and the complainant started to make demand of 5617 Units from the OPs but the OPs did not pay any heeds to release the maturity value/ benefits of the UTI certificates in spite of repeated request and demands. The complainant failed to recover the invested amount including bonus. The OPs on the other hand, admitted that due to technical reason the redemption process of the complainant was erroneously proceeded in favour of one Sri Sumit Ghosh which he encashed and the said mistake was purely unintentional and prayed this Forum to implead Sumit Ghosh in this case.

However, before going into the merit of this case it would be better to consider the preliminary issue on the point of limitation.

While submitting written argument, written statement and in their evidence OPs  insisted that  the complaint petition of the complainant was barred U/s 24 (A) of the Law of Limitation of the C.P. Act, 1986 as because the cause of action arose in the year 2003 whereas, the complaint was filed in the year 2007 i.e. after lapse of four years. It is submitted by the OPs that once cause of action started it continues to run and never halt. In support of the above the OPs referred the case law of Mahendra Sharma v. Unit Trust of India and others, decided on 02-02-2010  by the National Commission, Circuit Bench at Kolkata (West Bengal) in Rev. No.2370/07, where it has been held that –

“ In this case admittedly cause of action had arisen to the petitioner on 29-04-1994 whereas the complaint was filed in 2004 after delay of ten years. U/s 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint can be filed within a period of two years of arising cause of action. Delay in filing the complaint case can be condoned on showing sufficient cause. No such application was filed. Respondent in its written statement had taken specific objection that the complaint was barred by limitation....... According to us the complaint is liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation.”

In view of the above noted case, in the present case in hand the cause of action arose since 2003, the date on which the UTI certificates were matured i.e. the date on which the party becomes entitled for maturity value/ benefit of the UTI certificates and once the cause of action started, continues to run and never halt. Therefore, the cause of action in the present case commenced since 2003 whereas, the present case was filed on 22-03-07 i.e. after lapse of four years. Time limit for filing a complaint is no doubt is two years from the cause of action U/s. 24(A) of the C.P. Act, 1986 whereas, this complaint was filed after gap of four years and the complainant has not filed any application to condone the delay.

The complainant in this case took the plea  that he filed the complaint case on 05-02-07 after receiving the reply of the OP vide his Reference No.UTISL/TRC/LEGAL /US 64/2006-07/ R 62797 dated 07-06-2006 intimating the complainant that the entire  dues was erroneously paid to one Sri Sumit Ghosh as such, the complaint was filed on 05-02-07 which is within the period of limitation and cannot be said to be barred by limitation. In this respect I have already stated that cause of action once continued to run it never halt. The cause of action arisen in this case in the year 2003 which cannot be assumed to be continued till the denial of the claim or as stated by the complainant regarding the reliable of the OP as mentioned in the above letter. Consumer Forum constituted under the Act will entertain and adjudicate upon only such claim in respect of which the cause of action is alive on the date of institution of the complaint. The reason of delay given by the complainant that the OP took time in deciding the matter and at last replied that entire dues was erroneously paid to another account cannot be a ground of sufficient cause to condone the delay. Besides, the complainant did not ever pray or filed any application for condonation of delay in the Forum  and the OPs in their written statement had taken a specific objection that the complaint was barred by limitation.

In our view the complaint petition is barred by limitation, hence cannot be entertained and is dismissed without cost.