IMPORTANT POINT
Composite complaint is maintainable.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The key question swirls around the question, “whether this complaint is barred by time”. It is to be seen whether the present complaint was filed within the leeway prescribed by Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. If it is not filed within time whether the explanation given by the complainant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is lucid or lame.

2. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay are as follows. Jana Priya Finance and Industrial Investment (I) Limited with its head office at 113 Park Street Calcutta, West Bengal, Opposite Party in this case, opened its 176 branches throughout India and started collecting funds from general public. They also opened branches at Karnal as well as Panipat. They used to collect the funds and open bank accounts in the name of the opposite party. Receipts were also issued by the head office at Calcutta. On maturity, they used to make the payment of maturity amount alongwith interest. This process continued till 1988. Thereafter, out of blue, they stopped making payments, regularly. As many as 335 complainants did not get their maturity amounts with interest despite several requests made to OP. The legal notice sent to the OP also did not ring the bell. Ultimately the instant complaint by all the abovementioned consumers was filed before this commission on 11.5.1999.

3. One Prafulla Chandra Jaina filed suit no. 529 of 1992 in the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta on the plea that there was mismanagement in the OP company. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta vide its order dated 23.03.1993 ordered that the whole work of the aforesaid company to be centralized in the head office at 113, Park Street, Calcutta. The Hon’ble High Court also stayed all the proceedings against Jana Priya Finance and Industrial Investment (I) Limited. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.03.1993 is reproduced as follows:-

“(9) In order to centralize the working of the respondent no. 1 for administrative conveniences, the entire work should be centralized in the office situated in the premises no. 113, Park Street, Calcutta, so that the activities of the respondent no. 1 can be revived as early as possible.

(10) One year time is given to comply with all the statutory requirements for the revival and other activities of the respondent no. 1, statutory or non-statutory. There shall be a stay of all proceedings of any nature and description against the respondent no. 1 for a period of one year. In any event no proceeding be commenced against the respondent no. 1 without prior leave of this Court.”

4. The opposite party in Dainik Punjab Kesari dated 13.04.1994 advertised that:-

“Please note that the Division bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta was pleased to pass an order on 30th March, 1994 directing all Depositors including those who have filed proceedings before the various CONSUMER FORUMS to submit their claim directly to the Company by 30th April, 1994 to enable the Company to prepare final scheme for making payment to the Depositors. Please further note that the Claim if any, submitted after 30th day of April, 1994 will not get its place in the Scheme of Payment.

In the premises, the Depositors are requested to submit their claim directly to the Companys Regd. Office at 113, Park Street, Calcutta-700016 in terms of the said Order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench within 30th day of April, 1994.”

The above said paper has been filed on the record, which has been admitted by the opposite party in its reply.

5. All the records were sent to Calcutta. Vide its order dated 11.11.1997, the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta passed the following order:-

“The court: Mr. B. R. Chakraborty, the Auditor appointed in terms of the order of this Court earlier, is directed to scrutinise the claims of the petitioners herein within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order and in the event of any recommendation for payment by Shri C