State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Gian Kaur vs The Chairman And Managing Director, ... on 12 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1737 of 2009
Date of institution: 10.12.2009
Date of decision : 12.01.2010
Smt.Gian Kaur aged about 85 years wife of late Sh.Khazan Singh resident of
H.No.C-8/8792, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070 through her General Power of
Attorney Sh.G.S.Anand.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Bhikhai Ji,
Cama Palace, Africa Avenue, New Delhi - 110066 through its
Regional/Local Branch Office Punjab National Bank, Sheran Wala Gate,
The Mall, Patiala, Punjab.
2. The Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India Building (4th Floor),
Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Secretary.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 5.11.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.A.P.S.Guliani, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Harmohan Singh son of Gian Kaur appellant and Prabhjot Kaur (daughter-in-law of the appellant) wife of Harmohan Singh were having a joint saving bank account bearing A/c No.33171 with the respondent bank. Prabhjot Kaur died in the year 1990 whereas Harmohan Singh died on 25.4.1992. They died issueless. Therefore, the appellant being the mother of Harmohan Singh became the owner of the amount lying in the joint account of her son Harmohan Singh in the respondent bank.
First Appeal No.1737 of 2009 2
2. It was further pleaded that Jatinder Kaur another daughter in law of the appellant withdrew an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- from the said bank account No.33171 vide two different cheques bearing No.846215 dated 25.4.1992 for Rs.3 lakhs and 846216 dated 2.6.1992 for Rs.10,000/- by forging the signatures of Harmohan Singh.
3. It was further pleaded that on coming to know of this forgery committed by her daughter-in-law Jatinder Kaur, the appellant filed a complaint dated 9.6.1999 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala for registration of a criminal case against Jatinder Kaur Anand and other concerned employees of the respondent bank. On its basis, a criminal case was registered at FIR No.144 dated 14.8.1999 against Shri T.S.Grover, Smt.Jatinder Kaur and Mr.J.S.Narang regarding forgery of documents allegedly executed by Harmohan Singh in favour of Jatinder Kaur scribed by Sh.T.S.Grover and allegedly witnessed by Sh.J.S.Narang but later on, this FIR No.144 of 1999 was cancelled for want of territorial jurisdiction and, thereafter, another case was registered at FIR No.299 dated 14.8.1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC in Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. That case is pending trial in the Court of Sh.Parminder Singh Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patiala in which these 3 accused are facing trial. None of the bank employees has been challaned in the aforesaid case.
4. It was further pleaded that the appellant vide letter dated 12.7.1999 wrote to the respondent bank for illegal encashment of the amount vide these two cheques from the saving bank account No.33171 of Harmohan Singh and his wife Prabhjot Kaur without producing any Succession Certificate and she demanded the said amount with interest @ 18% p.a. However, the respondent bank failed to give any favourable reply. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman on 11.3.2000 for redressal of her grievances but the Banking Ombudsman refused to take any action. The appellant again approached the Banking Ombudsman vide letter dated 26.2.2004 by producing a certified copy First Appeal No.1737 of 2009 3 of the Succession Certificate dated 2.1.2004 issued by the Court of Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. However, the said complaint was rejected by the Banking Ombudsman vide letter dated 1.6.2004.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellant again contacted the Banking Ombudsman on 18.6.2004 for reconsideration of the case. The Banking Ombudsman vide letter dated 18.6.2004 directed the concerned bank to get compared the signatures of those two bank cheques from GEQD, Shimla. Accordingly, the Punjab National Bank filed an application in the Court demanding those documents for being sent to GEQD, Shimla for perusing but the Court dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application on her behalf for the said purpose but it was again declined by the Court vide order dated 22.2.2006. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the said order dated 22.2.2006 in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 22.3.2007 directed the concerned Court to handover two cheques in original to the Manager, Punjab National Bank for getting the same compared from the Central Authority i.e. GEQD (Government of India, Shimla). The Banking Ombudsman again refused to issue any direction to the concerned bank. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against them on 16.6.2009 in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum") for compensation. Interest and costs were also prayed.
6. The respondents appeared in the case and contested the same.
7. The learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 5.11.2009 on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable and the same was barred by limitation.
8. Hence, this appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 5.11.2009 be set aside and the learned District Forum be directed to re-decide the complaint on merits. First Appeal No.1737 of 2009 4
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. Admittedly, Harmohan Singh who was holding saving bank account No.33171 in the respondent bank had died on 25.4.1992. Prabhjot Kaur wife of Harmohan Singh who was the joint holder with her husband had died earlier in the year 1990. Therefore, the appellant had become the owner of amounts lying in the bank account of Harmohan Singh in the year 1992.
12. Jatinder Kaur another daughter-in-law of the appellant had withdrawn the money in the year 1992. Therefore, the cause of action had arisen to the appellant in the year 1992. In the judgment reported as "Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP)" , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to define the 'Cause of action' as under : -
"13. The term "cause of action" is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as "bundle of facts", which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, "cause of action" means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. "Cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. (See : Sidramappa v. Rajashetty & ors. (1970) 1 SCC 186). In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out."
13. Therefore, the cause of action had arisen to the appellant in the year 1992 and filing of the complaint in the year 2009 was obviously barred by First Appeal No.1737 of 2009 5 limitation. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment reported as "State Bank of India v. B.S.Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP)" that the limitation has to be counted keeping in view the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, according to which, a complaint has to be filed within a period of 2 years from the date when the cause of action arises. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under : -
"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 forum would be committing an illegality First Appeal No.1737 of 2009 6 and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."
14. Even, otherwise, the appellant was fully aware about the illegal withdrawal of the amount by Jatinder Kaur and she got registered a case against her and her companions in the year 1999. Therefore, at the most, the cause of action had arisen to the appellant against the respondent bank in that year.
15. Merely because the appellant went on filing the complaint before the Banking Ombudsman etc, the limitation does not get extended. The learned District Consumer Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation.
16. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
17. The arguments in this case were heard on 11.01.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER January 12, 2010.
Paritosh