IMPORTANT POINT
Legal notice cannot extend period of limitation.

D.K. Jain, President—These three Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Complainants, are directed against the common order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No.03/1082, 15/215 and 15/216. By the said common order, the State Commission has affirmed the orders dated 07.06.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No.80, 110 and 111 of 1999. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaints filed by the Complainants, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, the Opposite Parties in the Complaints, in not delivering the Share Certificates in respect of shares of “good companies” which they were asked to purchase for them, against the amounts, ranging between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.55,000/- paid by them to the Respondents, on the ground that the Complaints involved complicated questions, and for deciding the issues raised in the Complaints, extensive evidence, by examination of the witnesses, would be required.

2. As noted above, the State Commission has affirmed the orders passed by the District Forum on the afore-noted ground as well as on the ground that the Complaints were barred by limitation as well.

3. Having heard learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, for some time and perused the documents on record, we are of the view that there is no substance in all these Revision Petitions.

4. Referring us to some ledger accounts, maintained by the Respondents in their Books of account in respect of the deposits made by the Complainants, learned Counsel vehemently submits that these statements show that the accounts of the Complainants were running accounts, and therefore, the finding by the State Commission to the effect that the Complaints, filed sometime in February 1999, were barred by limitation is erroneous. However, on a pointed query, learned Counsel has not been able to show us any document reflecting any transaction of any kind, between the Complainants and the Respondents between the year 1994 and 1999 when the Complaints were filed. As a matter of fact, even the legal notice was admittedly issued on behalf of the Complainants to the Respondents sometime in the year 1998, which otherwise would not extend the period of limitation. Besides, we find That even the stand of the Complainants that they had not received the share certificates for the shares purchased on their behalf also stands belied by the finding recorded in the impugned orders to the effect that the Complainants had in fact been receiving dividends in respect of the shares purchased on their behalf. In these Petitions, there is no challenge to the said finding.

5. In view of the above, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.

6. It goes without saying that dismissal of these Revision Petitions will not have any bearing on the criminal proceedings, stated to have been initiated by the Complainants against the Respondents.

Revision Petitions dismissed.