State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Ahuja Karyana Store vs Punjab National Bank on 28 April, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.583 of 2010
Date of institution : 12.4.2010
Date of decision : 28.4.2010
M/s Ahuja Karyana Store, Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its partner Varinder
Kumar.
.......Appellants
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Kikkar Bazar, Bathinda through its
Circle Head.
2. Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Patiala Gate, Sangrur, through its
Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, Regional Collection Centre, Sector 17-D,
Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 31.3.2010 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Sangrur.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri Dinesh Kumar Singla, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The appellants had cash credit limit account No.484 with the respondent Bank. They got prepared the demand draft for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of M/s Parekh Marketing Limited, Chandigarh payable at Chandigarh. The said firm was already closed. The demand draft was lost in transit. The appellants requested the respondent Bank to issue duplicate copy of the demand draft. The respondent bank failed to do so. They even failed to supply the record regarding non- encashment of the demand draft.First Appeal No.583 of 2010. 2
2. It was further pleaded that the appellants sent two applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the respondent Bank but no information was supplied.
3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank, the appellants filed complaint against them in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "District Forum") for refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The respondent bank filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent Bank had prepared the bank draft on 28.10.1997 on the asking of the appellants. The appellants had approached the respondent bank for the first time on 23.6.2005 and requested the respondent bank to issue duplicate copy of the demand draft. The data for the period from 1997 was crashed/corrupted. Therefore it was not possible for the respondent bank to know the status of the said demand draft whether it was encashed or not. Therefore the respondent bank could not supply the information. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank or if the appellants were entitled to any compensation, interest and costs. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. Parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
6. Learned District Forum considered the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on file by them and dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 31.3.2010 on the plea that the complaint was filed by the appellants only on 17.9.2009 and therefore, it was barred by limitation.
7. Hence the appeal.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 17.9.2009 be set aside and the respondent bank be directed to supply the duplicate copy of the bank draft and also the record to show if the said bank draft has been encashed or not.
9. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. First Appeal No.583 of 2010. 3
10. The bank draft was got prepared by the appellants from the respondent bank on 28.10.1997. He demanded the duplicate copy of the demand draft on 23.6.2005. The complaint has been filed by the appellant on 17.9.2009. Therefore the complaint is highly belated and was barred by limitation.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment reported as "State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I)" 2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP) considered the provisions of limitation as contained in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and was pleased to observe as under:-
"8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, 'shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the First Appeal No.583 of 2010. 4 forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."
12. In view of the discussion held above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.
13. The arguments were heard in this case on 22.4.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the appellants.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
April 28 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER