State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
T.Seshaiah And Another Visakhapatnam vs Standard Chartered Bank And Another ... on 4 August, 2008
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION - AT HYDERABAD. RP.No.223/2006 against IA.No.144/2006 in CC.SR.No.94/2006 District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad. Between- 1.
T.Seshaiah, S/o.late Veerabhadrudu, Aged about 78 years, R/o.7-8-12/1, II Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam 530 003.
2.Dr.M.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.late Appa Rao, Aged about 43 years, R/o.7-8-12/1, II Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam 530 003.
Revision Petitioners/Petitioners/Complainants.
And
1.Standard Chartered Bank, (Successor of ANZ Grindlays Bank) Retail Leading Unit, 6-3-10980, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082, Rep. by its Branch Manager.
2.Standard Chartered Bank, (Successor of ANZ Grindlays Bank), Haddows Road, Chennai, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.
Respondents/Respondents/Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the Revision Petitioners - Mr.V.Gourisankara Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents - M/s.Kini and Co.
QUORUM- THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, AND SMT.M.SHREESHA,HONBLE LADY MEMBER, MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order (Per Honble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
-------
Heard both sides.
1. This is a revision preferred against the order of the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad in IA.No.144/2006 in CC.SR.No.94/2006 in refusing to condone the delay of 1445 days in filing the complaint.
2. The revision petitioners are the complainants. The case of the revision petitioners is that they filed complaint against the Standard Chartered Bank, the respondents herein, seeking direction to pay Rs.14,70,000/- along with interest at 9 percent per annum and costs on the ground that they have sold away their shares without issuing any notice. Thereupon, they issued legal notice on 06.03.2000 and later various representations and finally on 05.09.2005. Since they did not choose to give any reply and having waited for 1445 days, they filed the complaint and the delay sought to be condoned is in view of the non-settlement of the claim by the Bank.
3. The Standard Chartered Bank resisted the application on the ground that the cause of action has arisen on 27.03.1999 and the complaint has to be filed within two years. However, they filed the complaint after seven years from the date of cause of action i.e. after a lapse of five years from the last date of intimation. There was no ground, whatsoever, to condone the extraordinary delay of 1445 days, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. The District Forum after considering the fact that the bank had sold away the shares in the year 1999, and that they have informed the same to the complainants on 03.11.1999, and remitted some amounts, and the first notice being issued on 3.8.2000, and the complaint having been filed in 2005, it was beyond the period of limitation, for which no reason, whatsoever, was given, and therefore, the application was dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this revision petition contending that consistently they have been issuing notice after notice, for which the bank did not give any reply. The courts approach must be liberal in condoning delay and if delay is not condoned the meritorious matter will be thrown out at the threshold. Therefore, they prayed that the revision petition be allowed.
6. It is an undisputed fact that the complainants had borrowed amounts by pledging their shares. It is the case of the complainants that the bank had sold away their shares even without intimation. Thereupon, they gave first legal notice on 03.08.2000 followed by several notices dt.8.11.2000, 17.05.2000, 10.12.2001, 10.06.2002, 27,04.2003 and finally on 05.09.2005 and since no reply whatsoever, was given they filed the complaint. In view of these representations, it cannot be said that there was delay. Necessarily, they have to reckon the period of limitation from 05.09.2005, the second legal notice, and if so reckoned it could be within limitation.
7. At the outset, we may state that the bank has informed by notice dt.03.11.1999 that they have credited Rs.26,881.50 on 22.01.1999, Rs.1,67,188.89 on 03.02.1999 and Rs.89,265/- on 27.03.1999 after selling away the shares. Thereupon the complainants issued legal notice on 3.8.2000. When the complainants knew full well that the bank has credited these amounts as long back as on 03.11.1999, the complainants ought to have filed the complaint within two years. Even assuming that they have protested crediting of the amounts, by way of notice on 03.08.2000, they ought to have filed the complaint within two years from the date of first legal notice. It is not a case where the respondents acknowledged their liability. The question of subsequent issuing notice has no relevancy, in the sense that when the complainants have issued first legal notice on 03.08.2000, they ought to have filed complaint within two years of cause of action. Admittedly they did not receive either reply or settled their claim. Issuance of subsequent notices repeatedly would not give any reason or any cause of action for filing complaint. There is no reason why they have waited for five years for filing complaint. Had the complainants given any valid reason, we could have considered the reason and condoned the delay. When no explanation whatsoever was given, we are also unable to condone the delay of a whopping 1445 days.
8. We do not see any material irregularity or error in exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum. We do not see any merits in the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed. However, no costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER Dt-04.08.2008.