Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
TARAMATI SADANAND PATHAK - Appellant
Versus
BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 509 of 2011 with M.A. No. 1 of 2011, for condonation of Delay from Order dated 15.9.2011 in Complaint No. 196 of 2010 of State Consumer Commission, Maharashtra
Decided on : 10-02-2012
Mr. John Mathew, Advocate, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding the limitation period for filing a complaint and the discretionary power of the Consumer Fora to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24-A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which sets a limitation period of two years for filing a complaint, and the discretionary power of the Consumer Fora to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. The court emphasized the peremptory nature of the provision and highlighted the need for the complaint to be filed within the stipulated period unless sufficient cause is demonstrated and delay is condoned with recorded reasons. The judgment also referenced legal principles related to the proof of sufficient cause and the discretionary jurisdiction of the court in condoning delay.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a consumer complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 42,68,795 being the fixed deposit amounts with interest, compensation, and costs from the respondents. The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and did not entertain the complaint, citing a delay of 414 days in filing the complaint. The appellant argued that there were genuine reasons for the delay, including pursuing other legal remedies, serious illness, and personal circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Commission's decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and the complaint was well-reasoned and justified. It emphasized that the appellant's correspondence with other authorities and personal circumstances did not constitute sufficient reasons to condone the delay. The court also directed the appellant to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 and pay interest if the costs were not deposited within the prescribed period.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the delay in filing the consumer complaint and the application for condonation of delay. The court also addressed the appellant's arguments regarding genuine reasons for the delay, including pursuing other legal remedies, serious illness, and personal circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which sets a limitation period of two years for filing a complaint and provides for the discretionary power of the Consumer Fora to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. The court emphasized the peremptory nature of the provision and highlighted the need for the complaint to be filed within the stipulated period unless sufficient cause is demonstrated and delay is condoned with recorded reasons.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in the appellant being liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. The court scheduled a compliance hearing for a future date.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Being aggrieved by order dated 15.9.2011, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short 'state Commission') dismissing the application for condonation of delay as well as complaint filed by appellant, present appeal has been filed.
2. Appellant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs. 42,68,795 being the fixed deposit amounts with interest as well as compensation and costs from the respondents.
3. In the complaint, it has been averred that, the first of action arose when; "(a) opposite parties failed to pay the claimed amounts on 20.9.2007, and on date of maturity of the fixed deposit amounts, being 31.12.2007 and 10.1.2008; and even after receipt of the legal notice, dated 23.1.2008".
4. Along with the complaint, appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 414 days.
5. State Commission, vide impugned order dismissed the application for condonation of delay and accordingly did not entertain the complaint.
6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the State Commission has ignored the material facts of the case while concluding that there was no sufficient reason in condoning the delay. The deficiency of service complained of by the appellant pertains to non-refund of fixed deposit by the respondent. Appellant had been pursuing other legal remedies and she was seriously ill in January, 2008 and Nov., 2010, which fact State Commission has failed to consider.
7. Further, it is contended that it was a recurring cause of action and fresh cause of action arose, when the deficiency of service continued to exist. Moreover, in the month of February 2008 the appellant, who was ailing on account of a cyst on her head, had to leave for USA for consultation/treatment on 19.2.2008. Appellant returned to India on 2.5.2008, after having learnt of her last sister's death due to brain aneurysm. After her sister's death, appellant was shattered and the prospect of being all alone thereafter in India led her to deep depression and a nervous breakdown, followed by memory loss. Thus, there were sufficient ground for condonation of delay. However, the State Commission took a very rigid and narrow conspectus of the matter and wrongly rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the complaint.
8. The main ground pleaded in the application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission, read as under:
"The applicant left for USA in 2008, for medical reasons. Applicant's Advocate filed a criminal complaint against the Bank in ACJM Court, Pune in 2008 and after police investigation in 2009, the Hon'ble Court issued process against the four accused Bank Officers under Sections 420, 403, 406, 504 r/w 120-B. Her Advocate informed the applicant that the only remedy for her dues, was in a civil suit, which would take 20 years, and heavy Court and lawyer's fees; that Bank would compromise, after outcome of the criminal complaint in her favour, since the Bank officer had given a written confession that he had himself taken her FDR amounts; and had, therefore, issued cheques of FDR amounts to the Chief Manager of the Bank.
The applicant's last living sister, died of brain aneurysm in 2008. The applicant was now completely alone in India, and she suffered from acute depression and a nervous breakdown.
In 2009, applicant had undergone MRI brain-scan, surgery was scheduled, and was and is under treatment since then; she suffered from memory lapses and was ordered complete rest, without any stress. Therefore, High Court and Supreme Court expedited her matter in 2010.
In 2010, after the favourable verdict of High Court and Apex Court in her one Crore case, she again contacted the Banking Ombudsman and Governor of RBI, who sent replies on 4.8.2010 and 13.10.2010 respectively. Learned Counsel in High Court informed her about State Commission, and she immediately gave the complaint and the delay c
