State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ng Technology vs Punjab National Bank on 21 August, 2024
Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024
No. 12 of 2015 Versus
Punjab National Bank and another
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 12 / 2015
NG Technology, a Partnership Firm
through its Partner Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta S/o Sh. Anand Kumar Mehta
Street Kirtipal, Near Anaj Mandi
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta, Partner)
...... Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank
through its Senior Manager
Gurudwara Road, Jwalapur, District Haridwar
2. Punjab National Bank
through its Chairman
7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066
(Through: Sh. R.S. Bajwa, Advocate)
...... Opposite Parties
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
21.08.2024
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This consumer complaint has been submitted by the complainant
- NG Technology, a Partnership Firm, alleging that on 21.05.2012, the complainant has submitted an application with the opposite party No. 1
- Punjab National Bank, Gurudwara Road, Jwalapur, Haridwar for opening a Corporate Current Account, but instead of opening Corporate Current Account, the opposite party No. 1 opened a Retail Current Account No. 1829002100024317, which is still operative with opposite 1 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another party No. 1. It was also stated that the complainant - firm undertakes the work of software and website development & services. The complainant mentions all its business details on internet, which is its work culture. The work of software and website development & services is the only source of livelihood for the complainant. For running the business, the complainant not only requires internet facility, but also needs Corporate Internet Banking; ATM Card and Credit Card and in absence of said facilities, the complainant is unable to carry out its business. When the complainant applied for opening of Corporate Current Account on dated 21.05.2012, it was assured that all the facilities would duly be provided to the complainant. On opening of the account, ATM Card No. 5126520146449058 was issued by the bank to the complainant on dated 25.06.2012, but the same was taken back by the bank on 28.06.2012 on the pretext that the said ATM Card can not be issued in regard to a partnership account. On correspondence being made by the complainant, it was apprised by the bank that since the complainant is a partnership firm, hence the facility of ATM Card can not be provided to the complainant. The complainant sought information under The Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein it was informed that Debit Card + ATM Card can be issued in the name of partners. Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta, partner of the complainant - firm, made repeated correspondence with the bank in this regard, which has showed that it was in the knowledge of the opposite parties that he is the working partner of the firm. The said fact is also evident from mandate letter dated 27.05.2012, but inspite of that, the opposite party No. 1 neither issued ATM + Debit Card in favour of the complainant, nor in favour of Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta.
2
Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024
No. 12 of 2015 Versus
Punjab National Bank and another
2. It was further alleged that Sh. K.P. Singh, an official of opposite party No. 1 got the form of Corporate Internet Banking + Debit Card on four occasions, whereas only one form was to be filled, but the said official got the form filled four times on the pretext that the form has been misplaced, but inspite of that, the required facility was not provided to the complainant. The complainant made a complaint on 23.10.2013 and 18.11.2013 regarding the behaviour of Sh. K.P. Singh, but neither any action was taken by the bank, nor the aforesaid facility was provided to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2, being the Head Office of opposite party No. 1, is responsible for the acts and deeds of opposite party No. 1, as such, it has been made party to the consumer complaint.
3. It was also averred that in the past, the opposite party No. 1 had fraudulently opened three bank accounts bearing Nos. 1829002100002431; 1829002100243174 and 182002100023655 (wrongly mentioned as 1820002100023655) in the name of the complainant, whereas the complainant had never applied for opening of the said bank accounts. The complainant sought information under The Right to Information Act, 2005, but the same was not provided by the bank and the bank, with a malafide intention, did not provide the required facilities to the complainant. If the bank would have provided the facility of corporate internet banking to the complainant, the complainant would have come to know about the illegal transactions made by the bank. The complainant came to know about the forged accounts opened by the bank, from the remittance report of Punjab National Bank, Ahmedpur. The complainant also submitted First Appeal and Second Appeal. Vide order dated 18.05.2015 passed in Second Appeal, the bank was directed to furnish required information 3 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another to the complainant, but the opposite party No. 1 did not supply the requisite information to the complainant. A complaint was lodged against opposite party No. 1 by the complainant before the Competent Authority. The Appellate Authority through its letter dated 12.06.2014 had taken cognizance of the information sought by the complainant, but still the information was not supplied. Inspite of order dated 18.05.2015 passed by Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, the facility of Credit Card + ATM Card and Corporate Internet Banking was not provided by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
With the aforesaid allegations, the consumer complaint was set in motion by the complainant, seeking compensation of Rs. 86,53,620/- besides other reliefs set out in para 18 of the consumer complaint.
4. The opposite parties filed written statement (Paper Nos. 97 to
107) before this Commission on 22.03.2016. This Commission vide order dated 29.03.2016, held that the written statement filed by the opposite parties can not be accepted on record. The order dated 29.03.2016 passed by this Commission is reproduced below:
"Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant. The same be placed on record.
The written statement has been filed by the opposite parties on 22.03.2016. Vide order dated 01.02.2016, 30 days' time was granted to the opposite parties for filing the written statement. Even then, the written statement was not filed by the opposite parties within the said period of 30 days' and the written statement was filed on 22.03.2016.
Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India 4 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. HILLI Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.; 2015 (4) CCC 909 (SC), the written statement filed by the opposite parties can not be accepted on record since 45 days' time for filing the written statement has already lapsed. The objection filed by the learned counsel for the complainant for not taking the written statement on record, stand disposed of accordingly.
Put up on 21.04.2016 for complainant's evidence."
5. There is nothing on record to show that the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2016 passed by this Commission was challenged by the opposite parties before Hon'ble National Commission. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties has not advanced any argument to the effect that the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by this Commission has been set aside by Hon'ble National Commission in any proceedings. Thus, it is established on record that the written statement on behalf of the opposite parties was not accepted on record by this Commission, for the reason that the same was filed after the expiry of 45 days' prescribed for filing the written statement.
6. The record further shows that the opposite parties moved an application dated 21.04.2016 (Paper Nos. 113 to 114), seeking dismissal of the consumer complaint. This Commission per order dated 09.05.2017 (Paper Nos. 166 to 171) has allowed the said application and a result thereof, the consumer complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant went in appeal before Hon'ble National Commission and filed First Appeal No. 1557 of 2017; NG Technology Vs. Punjab National Bank and another. Hon'ble National Commission through 5 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another order dated 25.08.2023, allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by this Commission was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Commission for fresh disposal on merits. The parties were directed to appear before this Commission on 04.10.2023.
7. Pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by Hon'ble National Commission, consumer complaint was taken up on 04.10.2023, as was directed by Hon'ble National Commission.
8. In evidence, the complainant has filed the affidavit dated 07.05.2016 of Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta, partner of the complainant - firm along with annexures. Along with the affidavit, the following documents were annexed as annexures thereof:
(i) Copy of Partnership Deed dated 02.04.2012.
(ii) Copy of letter dated 21.05.2012 issued by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 regarding request for opening Corporate Current Account.
(iii) Copy of e-mail dated 02.11.2013 issued by the bank.
(iv) Copy of letter dated 27.05.2012 issued by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 regarding mandate to operate each current account.
(v) Copy of letter dated 28.06.2012 issued by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 regarding surrender of ATM cum Debit Card.
(vi) Copy of letter dated 21.10.2013 issued by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 for release of fresh ATM + Debit Card against account No. 1829002100024317.6
Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another
(vii) Copy of reminder letter dated 28.10.2013 issued by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 for release of fresh ATM + Debit Cards and Credit Cars along with Internet Banking Services.
(viii) Copy of letter dated 14.11.2013 issued by the complainant to opposite party No. 1, seeking information against issuing Retail Internet Banking instead of Corporate Internet Banking.
(ix) Copy of letter dated 22.11.2013 issued by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant in regard to complainant's letters dated 14.11.2013; 16.11.2013; 18.11.2013 and 20.11.2013.
(x) Copy of text messages.
(xi) Copy of transaction statement of the complainant's current account.
(xii) Copy of letter dated 12.06.2014 issued by the Departmental Appellate Authority, Punjab National Bank, Divisional Office, Haridwar to the complainant.
(xiii) Copy of letter dated 21.01.2015 issued by Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Noida to the complainant.
(xiv) Copy of order dated 18.05.2015 passed by Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001578; Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta Vs. Punjab National Bank.
(xv) Copy of total tender valuation list from Freelancer.com.
9. We have heard Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta, Partner of the complainant - firm as well as Sh. R.S. Bajwa, learned counsel for the 7 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another opposite parties and perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.
10. In the consumer complaint, it has been alleged that the complainant - firm is engaged in the work of software and website development & services, which is only source of earning livelihood for the complainant. It has further been contended on behalf of the complainant that the complainant submitted an application before opposite party No. 1 - bank for opening Corporate Current Account, but instead of opening Corporate Current Account, the opposite party No. 1 had opened a Retail Current Account bearing Account No. 1829002100024317, whereas at the time of applying for opening of Corporate Current Account by the complainant on 21.05.2012, it was assured by the opposite party No. 1 that all the desired facilities would be provided to the complainant, but the ATM Card No. 5126520146449058 issued to the complainant on 25.06.2012, was taken back by the bank on 28.06.2012, on the pretext that the same can not be issued in respect of partnership account. On correspondence being made, the complainant was informed that as the complainant is a partnership firm, hence an ATM Card can not be issued to the complainant. Thus, the facility of Debit Card + ATM Card; Credit Card and Corporate Internet Banking was not provided by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. On having been aggrieved by the said act of opposite party No. 1, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint before this Commission.
11. The rival contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties was that a current account was opened in the name of the complainant
- firm, but the ATM Card could not be provided to the complainant 8 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another because no mandate of the partnership firm was submitted with the bank.
12. Here, it is pertinent to mention that on record of this consumer complaint, the complainant has filed same documents on different occasions. Along with the consumer complaint, a copy of Partnership Deed dated 02.04.2012 of the complainant - firm has been submitted. The copy of registration certificate of the complainant - firm has also been filed, according to which, the firm has been registered with Firms, Society and Chits, Haridwar on 25.02.2015. The copy of the letter dated 21.05.2012 (Paper No. 13) regarding request for opening Corporate Current Account in the name of the complainant - firm is also available on record, wherein nothing is mentioned that at the time of submitting application with opposite party No. 1 for opening of Corporate Current Account, the complainant - firm has submitted the letter of mandate with opposite party No. 1. It is pertinent to mention here that the letter for opening of Corporate Current Account was submitted on 21.05.2012, whereas the letter of mandate to operate each current account was prepared by the complainant addressed to the opposite party No. 1 on 27.05.2012, i.e., after applying for opening of Corporate Current Account. Thus, it is evident that the said mandate letter was not provided to the opposite party No. 1 with the above application dated 21.05.2012. Paper No. 16 is the copy of letter dated 28.06.2012 issued by the complainant - firm to the opposite party No. 1. By the said letter, the complainant has surrendered ATM cum Debit Card No. 5126520146449058 issued on 25.06.2012 (wrongly mentioned as 25.06.2015) with the opposite party No. 1 under active state along with opened envelop pin and all supplied documents and pins envelops, as per their suggestion that the bank does not issue ATM 9 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another cum Debit Card over partnership accounts anyhow. The aforesaid letter has clearly depicted that the fact that the bank does not issue ATM cum Debit Card in regard to partnership account, came to the knowledge of the complainant on 28.06.2012, as such, the complainant has surrendered the ATM cum Debit Card and requested the opposite party No. 1 to guide as to how an ATM cum Debit Card can be issued on any account with the bank. The above letter does not reveal that along with the said letter, the complainant has submitted letter of mandate with the bank. The complainant has further issued letter dated 21.10.2013, copy whereof is Paper No. 22, to the opposite party No. 1, wherein it is mentioned that returning the activated ATM + Debit Card (with completed packet) to the bank, the complainant has not received any other ATM + Debit Card from the branch till today against subjected account, due to which, the complainant is facing many problems in internet banking facility provided by the bank to the complainant. The bank was requested to arrange the subjected ATM + Debit Card against same account immediately. This letter also shows that letter of mandate was not submitted by the complainant to the bank. The complainant issued reminder letter dated 28.10.2013, copy whereof is Paper No. 23, to the opposite party No. 1 on the same subject. On the said letter, endorsement dated 29.10.2013 was made on behalf of the bank to the effect that ATM Card will not be issued on partnership account. The complainant further issued letter dated 14.11.2013, copy whereof is Paper Nos. 24 to 25, to the opposite party No. 1, stating therein that the bank has denied to provide all of the ATM + Debit Cards and Credit Cards facilities to the complainant against same retail internet banking password activated at bank's end at bank's branch office. The complainant has still not received the requested internet banking (Corporate ID + User ID + Sign On Password + Txn Password) against 10 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another same current account till today for non-cooperation and misguiding purpose. In the said letter, the complainant has stated that it has suffered a loss of USD 45,00,000 for want of requested services along with loss of USD 10,000 per day due to wrong and non-requested services issued and activated against complainant's subjected letter. This letter also does no show that letter of mandate was submitted by the complainant with the bank. Thus, the correspondence made by the complainant with the opposite party No. 1 does not show as to on which date, the letter of mandate was submitted by the complainant with the opposite party No. 1. The complainant has not mentioned in its pleadings that it had submitted the letter of mandate with the opposite party No. 1. The complainant has also not filed any evidence to the effect that it has submitted the letter of mandate with the opposite party No. 1, which was duly received by the concerned clerk of opposite party No. 1.
13. The opposite party No. 1 - bank through letter dated 22.11.2013, copy whereof is Paper No. 26, addressed to the partner of the complainant - firm, has stated the ATM Card / Credit Card was never issued in CA No. 182002100023655 due to Partnership Account. It was also stated that the bank has never caused any loss in the complainant's account due to non-issue of Debit Card / ATM Card / Credit Card. So, why the bank is responsible in this matter. It was further pointed out that if any loss occurs due to use of any Debit Card / ATM Card / Credit Card in online services, it is the sole responsibility of the holder of the ATM / Credit Card. Thus, by way of letter dated 22.11.2013, the opposite party No. 1 has informed the complainant that it has never issued any ATM Card / Credit Card in regard to any current account.
11
Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024
No. 12 of 2015 Versus
Punjab National Bank and another
14. The complainant has stated that as per the letter dated 21.01.2015 issued by the Appellate Authority (RTI) & Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Noida, copy whereof is Paper No. 77, in reference to the First Appeal filed by the complainant under The Right to Information Act, 2005, in response to point No. 5, it has been stated the Debit Card can be issued in partnership concerns accounts as per the mandate given in the partnership deed and account opening form for operation of the account. Thus, as per the aforesaid letter, for issuance of Debit Card to individual partner, the mandate should be given in the partnership deed and account opening form for operation of the account. Since along with the letter submitted by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 for opening Corporate Current Account, mandate was not submitted, hence in such circumstances, the bank was not obliged to issue ATM cum Debit Card in favour of the complainant.
15. On an appreciation of the aforesaid facts, we find that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 for not providing ATM cum Debit Card + Credit Card and other internet banking facilities to the complainant - firm.
16. In the consumer complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 86,53,620/- along with Rs. 10,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony, besides other reliefs. The partner of the complainant has submitted that the complainant has filed documentary evidence (Paper No. 27), which is total tender valuation list from Freelancer.com, wherein an amount of Rs. 86,53,620/- has been shown as loss 24% (on Min Value). The complainant has submitted copy of 12 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another e-mails (Paper Nos. 28 to 72) in connection with the projects matching the complainant's skill. The partner of the complainant has submitted that the said tenders were floated, but the complainant could not participate in the said projects due to the facilities not provided by the opposite party No. 1. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant has not submitted any such experience certificate to show that the complainant has ever successfully completed the projects, tenders for which were floated. This apart, only by participation in a tender process, one can not be sure of securing the project, so as to earn income from the same. The averments made in the consumer complaint show that the amount of alleged loss of Rs. 86,53,620/- claimed by the complainant is imaginary and based on surmises and conjectures.
17. The partner of the complainant has also submitted that the present consumer complaint was earlier dismissed by this Commission per order dated 09.05.2017, holding that the complainant does not fall under the definition of "consumer", hence the consumer complaint is not maintainable. Against the said order, the complainant filed First Appeal No. 1557 of 2017; NG Technology Vs. Punjab National Bank and another, before Hon'ble National Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 25.08.2023. The order dated 09.05.2017 passed by this Commission was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Commission for fresh disposal on merits. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant - firm is engaged is business activity, i.e., commercial purpose and alleged loss claimed is also business loss, hence the consumer complaint is not maintainable. Learned counsel also submitted that the said point has not been decided by Hon'ble National Commission, who has only held that a partnership firm is a 'person' under Section 2(1)(m)(i) of the Consumer Protection 13 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another Act, 1986, hence can be treated as consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the condition under this Section.
18. We have perused the consumer complaint, wherein it has been averred that by not opening Corporate Current Account as well as not providing the desired banking facilities, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. It is worth mentioning here that in the consumer complaint, nothing is averred that the partnership firm was created exclusively for the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment.
19. In the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that the opposite party No. 1 has fraudulently opened certain bank accounts in the name of the complainant. The averment so made in the consumer complaint, is not relevant for deciding this consumer complaint because the complainant has not provided any details of the alleged fraudulent transactions made in the said bank accounts. This apart, the present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant, claiming alleged loss on account of not providing the desired banking facilities by opposite party No. 1.
20. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also contended that as per the rules & regulations of the bank, the software company is required to be registered as per law. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has attracted our attention towards the literature regarding legal compliances for software companies in India (Paper Nos. 320 to 321), wherein it is provided that software companies are companies that deal with the maintenance, development and / or publication of software that are either cloud based or maintenance / license (on premise) based, 14 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another Microsoft, Cisco etc. It is also provided therein that under the Companies Act, 2013, a company is required to be registered to conduct business in India. Software companies operate online and thus will have to be registered to be able to sell any software (good or service). It is further provided under clause No. (1)(b) of the said literature that it may be Partnership Firm, LLP, Private Limited Company, One Person Company (OPC). Relying upon the said literature, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that if any partnership firm is created for dealing with software and website development & services, then the said firm should be registered under the Companies Act, 2013, but no such registration of the complainant - firm has been submitted on record. As per the above literature, the partnership firm should be registered for carrying out the software business in India. As per the pleadings set out in the consumer complaint, the complainant - firm is engaged in the work of software and website development & services. Thus, according to the cited literate, the partnership firm should be registered under the Companies Act, 2013, which essentiality is missing in the present case.
21. As per the above literature, the entity should have other common licenses and legal registration viz. GST Registration; Trademark Registration to protect your brand name; Copyright Registration on your source codes; Patent Registration on Technology and Software License Agreements, for opening a software company in India, but in the Partnership Deed of the complainant - firm, there is no mention that the aforesaid required licenses have been granted to the complainant - firm. As per the literature, there are certain provisions as to how register a software company, which provides that one must first give a brief description of the firm, including the kind of product, market, 15 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another audience and technology that will be used. Everything pertaining to the software such as its creation and distribution to the market must be mentioned. Then decide whether to create a partnership, private corporation or sole proprietorship. The size of the company, the range of risk, the target market as well as the budget are crucial factors in determining the structure of the business. No such compliance has been made by the complainant and no relevant evidence has been submitted on record by the complainant before the Commission. Thus, it is apparent that legal requirements for running the business of software and website development & services, as is pleaded in the consumer complaint, have not been adhered to / fulfilled by the complainant.
22. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation because from the letter dated 28.06.2012 of the complainant, copy whereof is Paper No. 16, it is evident that it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the bank does not issue ATM cum Debt Card on partnership account. The present consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before this Commission on 29.09.2015, i.e., after a period of two years' from 28.06.2012, as such, the same is clearly barred by limitation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted following case laws:
(i) Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another; III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC).
(ii) State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I); II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) = 2009 (2) Supreme 784.16
Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another
23. In reply, the partner of the complainant - firm has submitted that the last letter was issued by the opposite party No. 1 on 22.11.2013, hence the cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant on 22.11.2013. Since the consumer complaint has been filed within two years from 22.11.2013, hence the same is within limitation and not barred by time.
24. Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for limitation period for filing a complaint, which reads as under:
"24A. Limitation period - (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen."
25. We do not agree with the submission made on behalf of the complainant because the complainant - firm in its letter dated 28.06.2012 has conceded the fact that the bank has informed that it does not issue ATM cum Debit Card in partnership account. We are of the considered view that by subsequent letter dated 22.11.2013 issued by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant, the limitation does not get extended. The reason being that it is settled preposition of law that merely by issuing letter / legal notice, the limitation period can not get extended. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Satinder Pal Singh reported in II (2018) CPJ 245 (NC). Relevant paragraph No. 10 of the said decision is reproduced below:
17Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another "10. Coming to the issue of limitation, I find that first of all State Commission has erroneously recorded that a legal notice dated 26.6.2003 was issued.
The fact is that this is a letter dated 26.6.2003 that was written by the complainant to the opposite parties wherein he had requested for changing the plot from D-194 to some other plot and also mentioned the fact that overhead electric lines were passing over the plot. Even if this letter was not replied by the opposite parties as the opposite parties had earlier cancelled the allotment vide their letter dated 30.5.2002 and even if the cancellation letter was not received by the complainant, he should have tried to find out what was happening to his allotment as he himself was not depositing the instalments. After six years he suddenly wakes up and sends another legal notice in the year 2008 and expects allotment of the plot when he has not deposited any single instalment. Clearly, the cause of action arose on 30.5.2002 when the allotment was cancelled. On 26.6.2003 when the complainant himself wrote a letter to the opposite parties and he did not receive any reply from the opposite parties, he should have taken action of filing complaint within two years from 26.6.2003. The complainant remained inactive for about five years and suddenly sent legal notice to the opposite parties and on that legal notice he filed the complaint. This cannot entitle the complainant for waiver of the limitation period as any amount of 18 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another correspondence cannot extend the limitation period."
26. Thus, in view of above legal position, the cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on 28.06.2012 or prior to that and not on 22.11.2013, hence we are of the considered opinion that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. We do not find any conviction in the stand of the complainant that the cause of action was continuing from 21.05.2012 to 18.05.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that by order dated 18.05.2015, Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001578; Sh. Atul Kumar Mehta Vs. Punjab National Bank filed by the complainant was decided by Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which order has got no relevance in the present matter. The reason being that the complainant is aggrieved of refusal on the part of opposite party No. 1 of not providing desired banking facilities, which fact came to the knowledge of the complainant on or before 28.06.2012. Thus, the complainant has submitted contradictory facts to those mentioned in the consumer complaint.
27. In Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. (supra), it was observed by Hon'ble National Commission that the cause of action occurred on the intervening night between 22nd / 23rd March, 1988, when the fire broke out, but the complaint was filed only in the year 1997. The first action by the appellants was in November, 1992, i.e., after a gap of 4½ years, when the appellants asked for the claim form. The Commission finally held that both the complaints were barred by limitation and, therefore, could not be entertained. In Civil Appeal, Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 18 as under:19
Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another "18. It is, therefore, clear from the aforenoted correspondence between the appellant and the Insurance Company that cause of action in respect of the special insurance policy arose on 22nd / 23rd March, 1988, when fire in the godown took place damaging the tobacco stocks hypothecated with the Bank in whose account the policy had been taken by the appellant. Thus, the limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Act began to run from 23rd March, 1988 and, therefore, the complaint before the Commission against the Insurance Company for deficiency in service, whether for non-issue of claim forms or for not processing the claim under the policy, ought to have been filed within two years thereof. As noticed above, the complaint was in fact filed on or after 24th October, 1997, which was clearly bared by time."
28. In State Bank of India (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the provision regarding limitation for filing of consumer complaint provided under the Act is peremptory in nature and requires Consumer Forum to see before admitting complaint, that it has been filed within two years from date of accrual of cause of action. It was further held that delay can be condoned if sufficient cause for delay is shown. It is the duty of Consumer Forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. It was also observed that complaint barred by time, if decided on merits, Forum would be committing an illegality.
29. The consumer complaint filed by the complainant is also bad for misjoinder of parties. The entire allegations in the consumer complaint have been levelled against opposite party No. 1 and opposite party 20 Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024 No. 12 of 2015 Versus Punjab National Bank and another No. 2 has been impleaded being Head Office of opposite party No. 1.
There is no such law that a Head Office of a bank or an insurance company should necessarily been impleaded as party to the case, even if it had no role to play in the subject matter.
30. In addition to above, the amount of compensation claimed by the complainant is imaginary and highly excessive and no basis of the alleged loss suffered by the complainant has been given in the consumer complaint, which goes to show that the consumer complaint has been overvalued by the complainant, with an intent to bring the same before State Commission. The factor that the complainant is engaged in commercial activity, the same ousts the complainant from the definition of "consumer" provided under the Act. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically provides that the word "consumer" does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. In para 13 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has stated that in case the complainant would have able to perform the work, it would have earned a minimum income of Rs. 86,53,620/-. The aforesaid averment so made in the consumer complaint, is enough to suggest that the compensation claimed by the complainant is imaginary in nature. It is to be noted that Hon'ble National Commission in para 13 of its order dated 25.08.2023 passed in the appeal filed by the complainant has held that a partnership firm is a 'person' under Section 2(1)(m)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence can be treated as consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the condition under this Section. Thus, there is also not clear verdict of Hon'ble National Commission that the complainant - firm, though engaged in commercial activity, falls under the definition of "consumer" provided under the Act.
21
Consumer Complaint NG Technology 21.08.2024
No. 12 of 2015 Versus
Punjab National Bank and another
31. For the reasons aforesaid, the consumer complaint has got no force and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability; limitation as well as in view of other grounds mentioned in the body of the order.
32. Consumer complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
33. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
34. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 21.08.2024 22