State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. M/S Kalpaka Kuries, Chalakudy, vs O.S.Rebello on 16 July, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 292/2006
(Arisen out of order dated in Case No. of District )
1. The Managing Partner,M/s Kalpaka kurles
Chalakkudy
....Appellant
Versus
1. O.S.Rebello
Koratty
....Respondent
1. O.S.Rebello Koratty ....Respondent BEFORE :
Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN , PRESIDING MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA , Member PRESENT:
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 292/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 16.7.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. M/s Kalpaka Kuries, Chalakudy, : APPELLANTS Represented by Managing Partner, Jolly Paul, Anna Rani Shopping Complex, Chalakkudy.
2. Jolly Paul, Managing Partner of Kalpaka Kuries, w/o K.K.Paul, Kalaparambathu House, Chalakudy.
3. K.K.Paul, Partner, Kalpaka Kuries, Kalaparambathu House, Chalakudy (By Adv.Peeyus.A.Kottam) Vs. O.S.Rebello, : RESPONDENT Thamaraparambil house, Muringoor, Thekkemuri Village, Koratty.
JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The opposite parties filed this appeal from the order of CDRF, Thrissur in OP 704/03 dated 13.4.05. The respondent is the complainant. As per the complainant he joined a kuri for a sala of Rs.6 lakhs. He remitted the installment in May, September and January. Thereafter at the 15th installment the kuri was auctioned by the petitioner for Rs.70,800/- and out of that 50000/- was deposited with the respondent. Thereafter petitioner paid inclusive of 32 installment and thereafter the respondent assured that the receipt of the installments would be adjusted from the interest on the deposit and and that the kuri would be offer in May 2000. The deposit amount of Rs.50000/- and balance amount it would given to the petitioner. According to the complainant he approached the opposite parties for many occasions to get this money. But the opposite parties did not remitted this money to the complainant hence this complaint. The opposite parties appeared and filed version they admitted the kuri but they contended that the deposit amount is not as a fixed deposit but as a security for the kuri amount. Their main contention is that the complainant is barred by limitation so it is not maintainable. The opposite parties filed a petition before the Forum below for given direction to the complainant to produce kuri amount security receipt and pass book it was produced by the complainant and marked as P1 and P2. Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.15000 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 3.5.2000 till realization, Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.800/- as cost.
This appeal prefers from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day this appeal came before this Commission the appellants represented for their counsel and the respondent is absent. The counsel for the appellants argued on the grounds for appeal memorandum that the complainant was filed after the period of limitation. This Commission perused the documents and order of the Forum below and reached in a conclusion that this complaint was filed by the complainant was only after the completion of two years. In the order it is mentioned that the kuri started on 19.12.83 and terminated on 3.5.2000. The OP was filed on 22.8.03. Therefore according to the appellants the petition ought to have been filed on or before 3.5.02 and sine it is filed beyond the time barred by limitation but it is well settled position that in case of financial institutions limitation starts only from the date of demand of the money. The Forum below relied the decision of the National Commission in Golden Finance, Thrissur Vs. Mrs. Suny Sakkaria (1996) 1 CPR 114. It is a settled position and this Commission is agreeing this interpretation of law. But in this case both in the compliant and in any documents the complainant did not give any specific date of the demand of the money from the opposite party. There is no notice issued by him. In other words he did not file any affidavit to support this fact of his case. He mentioned in this complaint that he demanded of money on several occasions but it is insufficient to fix a cut of date of limitation. This Commission us seeing that the complainant approached the Forum below with out clean hand. The complainant filed this complaint through a lawyer. This Commission is a fact finding body not an enquiry Commission. Here we want to follow the strict law of principles and the provisions of the evidence Act. Even though the Consumer Protection Act barred any complainant to file before any Forum or Commission after the expiry of 2 years. It is a mandatory provision since the date of cause of action. The order passed by the Forum below is not according to the principles of law. We are seeing that the provisions of the statute is not followed. The Forum and Commission are not a ordinary court but this is a fact finding quasi judicial body.
In the result this appeal is allowed and set aside the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
PS
Pronounced
Dated the 16 July 2010
[ Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN]
PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA]
Member