State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N. Amirthaguru, vs Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, on 6 November, 2009
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT THIRU Pon. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I R.P..NO.6/2009 (Against order in CMP.86/07 in C.C.Sr.138/2007 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North) DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009 N. Amirthaguru, | Mr.S.Natarajan, S/o. N.R. Narayanaswami, | Counsel for Petitioner/ 28/1, A 4, Thirukumarapuram, | 2nd Complainant 1st Main Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai 106. Vs. 1.
Deputy General Manager, | Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, | 69, Armenian Street, | Chennai 600 001 . | Mr.R.Raveendran, Counsel for | Respondents/Opp. Parties
2. Branch Manager, | Syndicate Bank, | 10, Mundy Street, | Vellore. |
3. N. Kuppusamy, | S/o. N.P. Narayanaswami, | 24, Ettiamman Koil Street, | (Given up) Thottapalayam, | Vellore. | The 1st Appellant and 3rd respondent as Complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Respondents/opposite parties to repay Rs.2,62,189/- with interest, the excess payment made and to pay Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service, Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony and pain and Rs.10,000/- as cost. CMP.86/2007 was filed by the appellants/respondent to condone the delay of 2920 days, the District Forum dismissed the Petition on 15.12.2008.
Against the said impugned order, this Revision Petition is filed.
This Petition coming on before us for hearing finally on 05.11.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this Commission pronounced the following order in the open court.
M. THANIKACHALAM J.
1. The Revision Petitioner, as second complainant, has filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), seeking a direction against the opposite parties for repayment of a sum of Rs.2,62,189/- with interest as if the amount was paid by them excessively for the loan borrowed, in addition, claiming a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. In the month of April 2007, as per the verification available in the copy of the complaint. Even according to the complainant, in moving the Consumer Forum, there is a delay of 2920 days, therefore, they have filed CMP.86/2007 under Section 24-A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act to condone the delay, alleging that due to some intervening proceedings taken by him, as well as the pendency of suits and other related matters, the delay in filing the complaint had occurred and it is neither willful nor wanton, thereby, praying to condone the delay. The opposite parties have opposed the condoning of the delay, by filing a detailed counter affidavit, praying to reject the application.
2. The trial Forum by its order dated 15.12.2008, dismissed the petition, concluding, that the delay of 2920 days that is 6 years, cannot be condoned since the explanation offered is not acceptable.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is aimed to up set the same, thereby, condoning the delay, to take the complaint on file.
4. Heard the counsels for both sides, perused the entire records, as well as the order of the Lower Forum.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would submit that the delay is properly explained by affidavit and unfortunately the lower forum without assigning any reason, dismissed the same, which should be set aside, in order to give an opportunity to the complainant, to agitate his case on merit before the lower forum, which is stoutly and vehemently opposed.
6. Revision Petitioners father obtained a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from the second opposite party, and purchased a lorry elsewhere in 1983. The second complainant was a Pigmy Agent of the second opposite party bank, who appears to have undertaken to settle the loan. As seen from the Paragraph 10 of the complaint, the loan was finally settled on 19.04.1996 on payment of Rs.4,17,242/-. It seems, it is the case of the complainant that they have paid excess interest or by the deficiency of the Bank, they have caused a loss of Rs.2,62,189/- and in this view, the case cam to be filed. Thus, it is seen, the cause of action, for filing the case had arisen on 19.04.96 and taking this date as cause of action alone, the delay is calculated, which is fixed as 2920 days. Admittedly, this is not an ordinary delay, would have been caused by inadvertently or in the ordinary course and in this view, it should be held, it is an extra ordinary delay, warranting satisfactory explanation, to condone the same to the satisfaction of the Forum.
7. In Para 3 of the affidavit, it is said that due to intervening proceedings taken by the complainant such as suits, labour court matters, the delay had occurred, further stating, it is neither wanton or willful. No material has been placed, before the lower Forum or before us that the so called proceedings mentioned in the Para 3 of the affidavit, prevented the complainant from filing the case or they were impediments in filing the case before the Consumer Forum, or they are entitled to the exclusion of the said period, as if they have agitated their claim before the wrong Forum. This being the position, condoning the delay of 2920 days is not at all possible, as rightly held by the lower Forum, though it had not assigned elaborate reasons.
8. Section 24-A (2) gives an opportunity for the party to explain the delay in order to condone the same when the complaint is filed after two years from the date of cause of action as contemplated under Section 24-A (1) of the Consumer Protection Act. In sub-section 2 of Section 24-A, it is said if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period, the Forum can entertain the complaint even a case has been filed after two years as prescribed under Section 24-A (1). By going through the affidavit, we are unable to satisfy ourselves, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the case for so many days, spreading eight years namely 2920 days.
If this kind of delay is accepted or condoned, that will cause irreparable loss and damage to the opposite parties and this cannot be ignored as such, though it is not stated so in sub-section (2) of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. By going through the claim, as well as by going through the affidavits, we are unable to find any reason or cause much less sufficient cause, to our satisfaction to condone the extraordinary delay. In this view, we conclude that the order of the lower forum in rejecting the application or dismissing the application to condone the delay is well justifiable, not warranting any disturbance.
7. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
PON GUNASEKARAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/d/mtj/Revision Petition