Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Sahil Garg —Petitioner
versus
Chief Manager/Manager, Bank of Baroda and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2870 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 02/07/2018 in Appeal No. 43/2018 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 2.4.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anish Garg, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The cause of action starts from the date of deduction or the date of knowledge of deduction by the bank.
2. Exchange of communication between the parties will not extend the period of limitation.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Banking-saving bank account-alleged deficiency in service of the bank – District Forum dismissed complaint as being time barred. State Commission dismissed appeal. Hence, revision.
Held, It is seen that opposite parties in the month of March 2013 deducted an amount of Rs. 3,49,889/- from the account of the complainant and on 13.12.2012, the amount of Rs. 93,051/- was also recovered by the opposite parties. These deductions must have come to the notice of the complainant or his father in the year 2013 itself. Thus, the cause of action arose only when the amount was deducted or when it came to the knowledge of the complainant.
Further Held, the cause of action cannot be stated to have been continued in the present case because it was not certain whether the amounts deducted by the bank were required to be refunded to the complainant. (Para 9)
Result: Revision dismissed.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sahil Garg against the order dated 02.07.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.43/2018.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that the case was fixed for consideration on admissibility of the complaint. Sahil Garg, petitioner/complainant had filed this complaint against the OPs with the averments that the complainant was having a saving bank account No.27210100005981 with OPs and the same was in operation since 2009. An amount of Rs.46,00,00,000/- was credited/transferred in the saving account of complainant and the OPs paid the interest of Rs.4,42,694/- for the period from 1.11.2011 to 29.1.2012. In the month of March, 2013, without intimation to the complainant, OPs deducted an amount of Rs.3,49,889/- from the account. On 13.12.2012, the OPs also recovered the amount of Rs.93,051/- without any instructions or intimation to the complainant.
3. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.274 of 2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum vide its order dated 07.12.2017 dismissed the complaint as time barred.
4. The complainant preferred appeal bearing No.43 of 2018 before the State Commission and the State Commission dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the District Forum.
5. Hence, the present revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel mentioned that in the present case the legal notice was served on opposite party bank on 03.09.2017. Both the fora below have never given any finding on issue that petitioner in his complaint as well as in his appeal specifically stated that the respondent have first time rejected the claim of the petitioner on 10.10.2017 when they gave the reply dated 10.10.2017 to the legal notice dated 03.09.2017 issued by the petitioner’s advocate.
Prior to that neither it was rejected nor it was settled by the respondents. Hence, the complaint filed by the petitioner is well within limitation as the cause of action was in continuance. Hence, complaint of the petitioner is liable to be heard on merits.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Commission in Premier Homes Vs. Oliver Archibald Aranha and Anr., 2010 (1) CPJ (NC) 16, wherein the gist of the order of this Commission is as under:—
“B. Limitation- Time-barred- Advance was paid by complainant in 1995- Construction not completed by O.P. in time- Notice issued by complainant replied in 2003- Cause of action was continuing, last arose from the date of refusal of notice- complaint held within time, hence maintainable- Revision dismissed.”
8. On the basis of the view taken by this Commission in Premier Homes Vs. Oliver Archibald Aranha and Anr. (supra), it was requested by the learned counsel that the delay should be counted from the date of reply of the notice given by the opposite party, i.e. from 10.10.2017.
9. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. It is seen that opposite parties in the month of March 2013 deducted an amount of Rs.3,49,889/- from the account of the complainant and on 13.12.2012, the amount of Rs.93,051/- was also recovered by the opposite parties. These deductions must have come to the notice of the complainant or his father in the year 2013 itself. Thus, the cause of action arose only when the amount was deducted or when it came to the knowledge of the complainant. Learned counsel stated that they were in constant correspondence with the opposite party bank. However, finally the bank has given their version in the reply dated 10.10.2017 sent in response to the legal notice given by the complainant on 03.09.2017. In the judgment relied upon by the learned
