National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Lis Deepasthambham Project & Anr. vs Sri Mammen Koshy on 12 March, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1966 OF 2012 (From the order dated 01.02.2012 in Appeal No. 74/2012 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram) 1. LIS Deepasthambham, Project, Palackal Court, Near Shenoys, M.G. Road, Cochin, Rep. by Managing Trustee, Kuriachan Chacko 2. The Branch Manager LIS Deepasthambham Project Geethanjali Building, 1st Floor Opp. To KSRTC Bus Station Pathanamthitta from PKR Centre 2nd floor, Opp. To KSRTC Bus Station Pathanamthitta Petitioners/Opposite Parties (OP) Versus Sri Mammen Koshy Pariyarathu Veedu, Cheriyanadu P.O. M.K. Road, Chengannur, Alappuzha Kerala 689 511 from Kalathil Veedu Elanjimel P.O., Chengannur, Alappuzha Kerala 689 511 Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Wills Mathews, Advocate For the Respondents : Nemo PRONO UNCED ON 12th March, 2014 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 74/2012 LIS Deepasthambham & Anr. Vs. Sri Mammen Koshy by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 6,95,000/- with OP/petitioner in 24 spans from 27.5.2005 to 19.10.2005 on the assurance that deposited amount will be doubled in few months. Inspite of frequent visits to opposite partys office, 5 years have passed but deposited amount as promised was not given. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was further submitted that aforesaid amount was not deposited, but entrusted to the OP for supplying Government lottery tickets and magazines.
OP purchased lottery tickets worth Rs.3,89,200/- and issued the magazine due thereat and also paid Rs.77,594/- as lottery prize won by tickets purchased for the complainant.
It was further submitted that a criminal case was registered against the OP and his accounts were freezed by Court. It was further alleged that District Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.6,95,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and further allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. None appeared for the respondent even after service and received written submissions sent by him.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that money was not deposited by the complainant with the OP, but was entrusted for investment in lottery tickets and magazines and further submitted that inspite of complaint being barred by limitation, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
6. It is admitted case of the complainant that he deposited Rs.6,95,000/- with the OP from 27.5.2005 to 19.10.2005. He has specifically mentioned in the complaint that close to five years have elapsed, but money has not been returned to him. Admittedly, complaint was filed in the year 2010. Admittedly, complaint was barred by limitation. OP also raised objection in the written statement and submitted that complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation. Learned District Forum while dealing limitation and jurisdiction aspect observed as under:
In this back drop, we are of the view that the opposite parties contentions as to limitation and jurisdiction do not inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. In the light of whatever has been discussed herein above, we are of the view that the complainants case stands visibly substantiated, and the complainant is entitled to relief.
7. Learned State Commission has not discussed this aspect in the impugned order.
Admittedly, complaint has been filed after 5 years of so called deposit and no application under Section 24A has been filed by the complainant for condonation of delay.
8. Honble Apex Court in (2009) 7 SCC 768 Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company Vs. National Insurance Company and Anr. held that complaint filed after more than 9 years of the cause of action, that too without any application for condonation of delay was rightly dismissed by this Commission. He also placed reliance on (2009) 5 SCC 121 State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) in which it was held that if application for condonation of delay under Sec. 24A is not filed and complaint is barred by time, the Forum would be committing illegality in deciding complaint on merits.
9. In the present case, admittedly, complaint is barred by almost 3 years and no application was filed for condonation of delay. In such circumstances, learned District Forum ought to have dismissed complaint as barred by limitation instead of proceedings on merits. Learned District forum has not assigned any reason for brushing aside arguments on limitation and it is very surprising that learned State Commission has also not dealt this aspect and dismissed appeal. In such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside.
10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Kerala State Commission in Appeal No. 74/2012 LIS Deepasthambham & Anr. Vs. Sri Mammen Koshy and order of District Forum dated 31.05.2011 in CC No. 184/2010 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k