Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
MATRUMAL DHANNALAL OIL MILL - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Respondents
Consumer Complaint No. 286 of 2014
Decided on : 22-08-2014
Mr. Devender Saini, Advocate, for the Appellant
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, as highlighted by the court's emphasis on the inordinate delay in filing the case and the influence of the Supreme Court's decision in Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Time Barred Cases - Section 24A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and emphasized the need for empirical and practical adjudication of time-barred cases. The court highlighted the influence of the Supreme Court's decision in Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., emphasizing the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing complaints under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a partnership firm, entered into a consignment agreement with a buyer in Bihar, resulting in the dispatch of two consignments. However, it was later discovered that the drafts used for payment were stolen, leading to a series of legal actions and counter-actions between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was time-barred, emphasizing the inordinate delay of 14 years in filing the case. It cited the closure of the investigation and the lack of action taken during the period as reasons for dismissing the complaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint was within the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settled rights of the parties could not be disturbed after such a long delay, and cited the influence of the Supreme Court's decision in Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to support its finding.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, ruling that it was hopelessly barred by time.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member -One of the duties casts upon this Commission established under the Consumer Protection Act, is to approach the problem more gingerly and realistically whenever it is confronted with the question of time barred cases under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Court has to be empirical and practical in adjudicating this point. This Commission cannot waft aside the delay of 14 years as venial. Now the facts of this case deserve a look.
2. M/s. Matrumal Dhannalal Oil Mill, the complainant, is a partnership firm having its registered office situated at Hathras, U.P. The complainant was maintaining a current account No. 315 since the year 1995-96 with the State Bank of India, Mandi Samiti, Hathras, U.P., opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 is the main Branch of State Bank of India at Hathras, U.P. The State Bank of India's head office is situated at State Bank Bhawan, Mumbai, which is arrayed as opposite party No. 1.
3. In the year 2000, the complainant was planning to establish its Depot at Patna (Bihar). The complainant received a telephonic call from one Mr. Vijay Prasad who described himself as proprietor of M/s. Pawan Trading Co., Chitkohra Bazar, Patna (Bihar) and offered to become the consignment agent of the complainant by making advance payment as deposit against goods despatched. The complainant also received a letter dated 12.6.2000 from said Mr. Vijay Prasad on its printed letter-head along with four drafts of Rs. 85,500 each in favour of the complainant payable at State Bank of India, main Branch, Hathras/opposite party No. 2. The details of above said draft are described as follows:
S. No. Draft No. Dated Amount
1. 845315 12.6. 2000 Rs. 85,500.00
2. 845316 12. 6 .2000 Rs. 85,500.00
3. 845317 12 .6.2000 Rs. 85,500. 00
4. 845318 12.6.2000 Rs. 85, 500.00
Total Rs. 3,42,000.00
Copy of the letter dated 12.6.2000 has been annexed as Annexure A-4. The complainant deposited all these drafts with the opposite party No. 3. After the clearance of the said drafts, the complainant despatched a consignment of 752 Tins, each containing 15 kms. Radha Krishna Brand Mustard Oil to said buyer on 14.6.2000. The total cost of the consignment was Rs. 3,46,400. The consignment was duly received by M/s. Pawan Trading Co. Copies of despatch papers and copy of G.R. have been placed on record as Annexures A-5 and A-6, respectively.
4. On 17-18th June, 2000, again the complainant received a telephonic call from said Mr. Vijay Prasad and received a letter dated 19.6.2000, wherein he requested for one more consignment and following four drafts in the sum of Rs. 92,000 each in favour of the complainant payable at opposite party No. 2 were sent. The details of these drafts run as follows:
S. No. Draft No. Dated Amount
1. 845639 19.6.2000 Rs. 92,000.00
2. 845640 19.6.2000 Rs. 92,000.00
3. 845641 19. 6.2000 Rs. 92,000.00
4. 845342 19.6.2000 Rs. 92,000.00
Total Rs. 3,68,000.00
Copy of the letter dated 19.6.2000 was annexed with the complaint as Annexure A-7. Consequently, the complainant sent another consignment of 752 tins each containing 15 kgs. mustard oil valuing at Rs. 3,74,220 on 21.6.2000. Copies of despatch paper and copy of G.R. are annexed with the complaint as Annexure A-8 and Annexure A-9, respectively. Those drafts were deposited in the current account and the amount of drafts was again credited by the opposite parties in the account of the complainant. The truck driver of the second consignment arrived at Patna on 26/27.6.2000 and tried to trace out said Mr. Vijay Prased but failed to trace him out. He contacted the complainant, who sensed some foul-play and directed the driver to come back to Hathras along with the consignment, which was duly returned to the complainant. M/s. Amar Golden Transport Company charged Rs. 21,260 from the complainant on account of returning the second consignment to Hathras.
