Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Babu Sebastian – Petitioner
versus
Kottayam District Co-Operative Bank Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd. – Respondent
Revision Petition No.895 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 25/02/2020 in Appeal No.48/2018 of the State Commission Kerala)
Decided on 2.2.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.G. Mahesh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
“Complaint filed after delay of four years rightly barred by limitation.”
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21(b) and 24-A : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58 and 69] – Recurring deposit – Deficiency in service – Complaint dismissed on ground of limitation – Legality – Complainant was a member of a society and he took a recurring deposit and remitted a sum of Rs. 450/- for 120 months – Subsequently Society reduced the rate of interest from 13% to 11.5% p.a. – On maturity of deposit paid only Rs. 1,00,851/- instead of Rs. 1,10,094/-, thus reduced the amount by Rs. 9,243/- – Date of maturity of recurring deposit was 15.12.2009, whereas complaint was filed before District Forum on 15.4.2014 – Since there was a delay of more than four years in filing the complaint, Fora below rightly dismissed the complaint filed by petitioner – No reason found to interfere with.
Held: Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was a member of a Society and he took a recurring deposit and remitted a sum of Rs.450/- every month for 120 months. As the Society was suffering loss they reduced the rate of interest from 13% per annum to 11.5% per annum and on maturity of deposit on 15.12.2009, the Opposite Party paid the Petitioner Rs.1,00,851/-, instead of Rs.1,10,094/, thus reducing the amount by Rs.9243/-. The maturity date of the recurring deposit was 15.12.2009, whereas the Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 15.04.2014. There was thus, a delay of more than four years in filing the Complaint. It was held by this Commission that the cause of action was continuing till the Complainant sought encashment of FDs. The Revision Petitions were dismissed.
The facts and circumstances of the present Revision Petition are not similar. In the present case recurring fixed deposit was taken, but not in the nature of reinvestment deposit, which matured on 15.12.2009 and the amount was duly paid to the Petitioner. There was no continuous cause of action. The cause of action arose on 15.12.2009 and the Complaint was filed only on 26.12.2009, with a delay of more than four years.
In view of the above, both the Fora below have rightly held that the present Complaint was barred by limitation and dismissed the Complaint as well as the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.
The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act is limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion on the facts when there is a concurrent finding of fact by the Forum below. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013(2) CPR 14 (SC): (2011) 11SCC 269. These findings are reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286.
Based on the above discussion, I see no reason to disagree with the Fora below. Revision Petition no. 895 of 2020 is dismissed and orders passed by both the Fora below are confirmed, with no order as to costs. (Paras 6 to 12)
Result: Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2020 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (‘the State Commission’) in FA no. 48 of 2017.
2. The case of the Petitioner/ Complainant is that he joined a recurring deposit on 15.12.1999 with the Respondent/ Opposite Party, wherein, he remitted a sum of Rs.450/- per month for 120 months. He was promised 13% per annum interest and the maturity amount to be paid on 15.12.2009 was Rs.1,10,094/-. However, he got only Rs.1,00,851/- from the Respondent and Rs.9243/- was reduced due to reduction in the rate of interest from 13% to 11.5%. According to the Opposite Party, reduction in the rate of interest was as per the decision taken in the General Body meeting of the Society held on 26.06.2008. The Petitioner, however, stated that reduction of rate of interest was not included as an item in the agenda and on knowing that the rate of interest on his fixed deposit was reduced, he objected to it. As this amounted to unfair trade practice, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum with the following prayer:
• To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.9243/- being the difference in the maturity amount caused by the reduction of rate of interest from agreed 13% to 11.5%;
• To direct the Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the above said amount, i.e., Rs.9243/- from 26.12.2009, the date of maturity of the deposit till the date of realisation;
• To direct the Opposite Party to pay the Petitioner an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the physical and mental agony caused to the Petitioner;
• To pass such other reliefs which may be deemed just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case;
• To allow the cost of this case.
3. The Opposite Party contested the case contending that the Complaint was not maintainable. The cause of action arose on 26.12.2009 when the maturity amount was paid and the Complaint was filed on 24.07.2014. It was, therefore, barred by limitation. On merit it was stated that the rate of interest for cash credit loan was reduced as per the norms of NABARD and RBI, though the rate of interest for recurring deposit remained the same. The Respondent sustained heavy loss and therefore, the general body of the Society decided to reduce the rate of interest to 11.5% per annum. This decision was for the welfare of the Society and its members and though the Complainant was aware of this decision, he did not take any objection till his retirement. Since Rs.1,10,086/- had been paid to the Complainant, there was no deficiency in service on the their part. The Opposite Party, therefore, sought dismissal of the Complaint.
4. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the ground of limitation. The State Commission heard both the parties and after perusing the record, observed that the District Forum had correctly found that the Complaint was barred by limitation. The Appeal was devoid of merit and therefore dismissed.
5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the record.
6. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was a member of a Society and he took a recurring deposit and remitted a sum of Rs.450/- every month for 120 months. As the Society was suffering loss they reduced the rate of interest from 13% per annum to 11.5% per annum and on maturity of deposit on 15.12.2009, the Opposite Party paid the Petitioner Rs.1,00,851/-, instead of Rs.1,10,094/, thus reducing the amount by Rs.9243/-. The maturity date of the recurring deposit was 15.12.2009, whereas the Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 15.04.2014. There was thus, a delay of more than four years in filing the Complaint.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, during the course of the argument, referred to order dated 02.12.2019 of this Commission in RP no.1024 of 2019, wherein the Petitioner/Opposite Party took the plea that th
