IMPORTANT POINT
The limitation period prescribed is peremptory in nature.

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.—

In this appeal by special leave an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘National Commission’) on October 1, 2001 is under challenge. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ist, Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated November 16, 2000 allowed the complaint filed by the present respondent (for short, ‘the Complainant’) and directed the present appellant (for short, ‘the Bank’) to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,47,154/- with interest @ 15% per annum from April 21, 1994 and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation. The Bank challenged this order in appeal before the State Commission for Redressal of Consumer Disputes, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short, ‘State Commission’) but without any success. The National Commission upheld the concurrent orders of consumer fora to which the Bank is aggrieved.

2. The complainant filed a complaint against the Bank on May 5, 1997 claiming an amount of Rs. 2,47,154/- for deficiency in service alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., litigation expenses and compensation. The complainant averred; that it has been carrying on business of manufacturing and supply of engines and pump sets all over India through their dealers and distributors; that it sent to the Bank seven bills amounting to Rs. 2,47,154/- drawn on M/s Unique Agro Service, P.O. Heria, District Midnapore (W.B.) together with GR’s of transporters for collection of payment and remittance of proceeds to the complainant; that it instructed the Bank to deliver the bills and GR’s against payment to the drawee (M/s Unique Agro Service) and charge interest @ 24% per annum from May 22, 1994 (if the documents are not retired by the drawee from the Bank within 30 days of the presentation of the bills); that the Bank was also instructed to return the bills and GR’s if the drawee did not retire the bills within 45 days of the presentation of the bills i.e. upto June 7, 1994 and that despite repeated letters dated March 15, 1995, May 4, 1996, March 1, 1997 and March 20, 1997 and legal notice dated April 3, 1997, the Bank has neither sent the amount of Rs. 2,47,154/- nor returned the said bills and GR’s necessitating the complaint before the District Forum, Agra.

3. The complainant admitted in the complaint that vide letter dated March 28, 1995, the Bank informed it that they have returned the bills and GR’s to B.M Konar (complainant’s sales manager) on May 10, 1994. However, according to the complainant on May 4, 1996, a letter was sent to the Bank asking them under what authority they delivered the documents to B.M. Konar and the Bank was asked to send either a demand draft for Rs. 2,47,154/- together with interest or return the documents without further delay. The complainant is stated to have again sent the reminder to the Bank on March 1, 1997 to which Bank asked the complainant to arrange to forward a copy of the letter dated May 4, 1996 for necessary action.

4. The bank resisted the complaint on diverse grounds, inter alia, (i) that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act, 1986’); (ii) that the complaint was clearly time barred and beyond the period of limitation; (iii) that the bills and GR’s were returned to B.M. Konar, the Sales Manager of the complainant firm; (iv) that the drawee ( M/s Unique Agro Service) had accepted the liability of payment of the bills to the complainant vide letter dated May 11, 1994 and also deposited a cheque to the complainant in that regard.

5. The District Forum framed two points for determination; (one) whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party and (two) whether B.M. Konar was authorized agent in collecting the bills and GR’s from the Bank? Pertinently, despite the specific plea having been raised by the Bank that the complaint was time barred, point for determination in this regard was neither framed nor considered.

6