State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kajal Ghosh vs Contai Co-Operative Bank Ltd. on 11 August, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/110/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/10/2012 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/44/2012 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. Kajal Ghosh S/o Sri Surajit Ghosh, Vill. - Jawgachha, P.O. - G.I.P. Colony, P.S. - Jawgachha, Dist. Howrah, Pin -711 112. 2. Sk. Anwar Khan S/o Late Kaberuddin, Vill. - Salgechhia, P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 626. 3. Sital Prasad Bera S/o Late Barendra Nath Bera, Vill. - Bhubaneswarpur, P.O. Balichak, P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 724. 4. Asit Baran Mondal S/o Late Gunadhar Mondal, Parbatipur, P.O. & P.S. - Tamluk, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 626. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd. Represented by the secretary, P.O. & P.S. - Contai, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 401. 2. The Branch Manager, Contai Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Barbarisha Branch, Kolaghat, P.O. - Kolaghat, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 134. 3. The Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies Purba Medinipur -II, Contai, P.O. Contai, Dist. Purba Medinipur, Pin - 721 401. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Biswajit Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Dated : 11 Aug 2016 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing - 30.01.2013 Date of Hearing - 01.08.2016 PER HON'BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER
Challenge in this appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is to the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur (for short, Ld. District Forum) in consumer complaint no. 44/2012 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Complainants u/s 12 of the Act was dismissed being time barred in view of the provision of Section 24A of the Act.
The Appellants herein being Complainants initiated the consumer complaint asserting that the Complainant no.1 received a loan of Rs.6,31,055/- in order to purchase of a bus being Regd. No. WB-11A/8396 from the Opposite Party no1/Bank. Unfortunately, the said bus met an accident on 18.05.2007 and consequently, Complainant no.1 has failed to make payment of the instalment of loan. On 27.05.2008 the OP/Bank sent a letter demanding the instalment but the Complainant no.1 could not comply with the same. On 07.02.2009 the OP/Bank demanded interest and overdue amount and expenses of Rs.2,18,404/-. The Complainants state that during the said period, the father of the Complainant no.1 was suffering from prolonged illness and in order to save the life of his father, Complainant no.1 could not take steps of payment of instalments. Ultimately, the vehicle was seized on 04.02.2009 at 12:30 P.M. Hence, the complaint with prayer for direction upon the OPs to return back the vehicle after adjustment of arrears, dues etc. Since the complaint was lodged on 26.06.2012 after a delay of more than two years from the date of alleged cause of action on 07.02.2009 and an application for condonation of delay u/s 24A of the Act was also filed. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the complaint.
Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants. None appears for the Respondents when the record was called on for hearing. Under compulsion, the record was taken up for disposal on the basis of argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants and the materials on record.
The Ld. District Forum in the impugned order observed -
"it is alleged that their vehicle in question was kept in garage for repairing on 13.06.2008 after met an accident. The vehicle was seized on 07.02.2009 by the OP no.2. In the application, there is no specific date/period as to medical treatment of the father of Complainant no.1. It appears from OPD tickets that Shri Surojit Ghosh was treated on 11.11.2004 and 26.02.2005 i.e. long before cause of action. The other OPD tickets relates to treatment of Shri Surojit Ghosh on 09.04.2011 and onwards but the Complainant did not file any document to show as to any cogent reason for delay for the period from 07.02.2009 to 08.04.2011. That apart, the other reasons shown by the Complainant in the instant petition for delay, in our view, are not at all sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the instant complaint after lapse of three years and eight months".
The contention of the Appellnats that the father of Appellant no.1 Shri Surojit Ghosh was undergoing treatment which prevented the Appellants to lodge the complaint within the period of limitation is not at all substantiated because the said Surojit Ghosh was never treated as an indoor patient in the hospital. If a person is treated as outdoor patient, certainly, the son of that person will not be prevented from performing his day to day routine life.
The provisions of Section 24A of the Act is peremptory as well as mandatory. Therefore, when the Appellants have failed to assigned 'sufficient cause' for the reasons of delay in lodging the complaint, we think that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned.
Consequently, appeal is dismissed exparte.
The order no.03 dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/44/2012 is hereby affirmed.
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER