Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member
TARAMATI SADANAND PATHAK - Appellant
Vs.
BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. - Respondent
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
For the Appellant :Mr. John Mathew, Advocate
The peremptory nature of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, requires complaints to be filed within two years from the date of the cause of action, and the court has discretionary power to condone the delay only if sufficient cause is shown.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24-A - The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the complaint, citing the peremptory nature of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which requires complaints to be filed within two years from the date of the cause of action. The court emphasized the need for sufficient cause to condone the delay and highlighted the discretionary nature of the court's power in such matters. The court also noted that the appellant's illness was not adequately supported by medical evidence, and therefore, the delay in filing the complaint was not justified.
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 as well as 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.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the complaint was not justified, as the appellant's illness was not adequately supported by medical evidence. The court emphasized the peremptory nature of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the need for sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the complaint could be condoned, considering the appellant's reasons for the delay, including illness and pursuit of other legal remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the complaint could not be condoned, as the appellant's illness was not adequately supported by medical evidence, and the pursuit of other legal remedies did not justify the delay. The court emphasized the peremptory nature of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the need for sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000, directing the appellant to deposit the costs within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in additional interest at 9% p.a. until realization.
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 sisters death due to brain aneurysm. After her sisters 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. Applicants Advocate filed a criminal complaint against the Bank in ACJM Court, Pune in 2008 and after police investigation in 2009, the Honble 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 lawyers 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 applicants 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 condonation appl
