Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SURJIT SINGH, PREM CHAUHAN, JJ
KANTA SHARMA - Appellant
Vs.
POST MASTER CENTRAL (P&T) CIRCLE SHIMLA, H.P & ANR. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 173 of 2013
Decided on : 12-03-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. Parmod Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, starts from the date when the cause of action accrues, and subsequent events cannot extend it.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Dismissal of complaint under Section 12 - 1986 - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12] - The court dismissed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, holding that it was barred by time and that no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents had been proved. The court also rejected the appellant's submission that a legal notice served extended the limitation period, stating that limitation starts from the date when the cause of action accrues.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging non-receipt of the maturity value of Kisan Vikas Patras purchased in 2000. The respondents claimed to have issued a cheque for the amount, which was credited to a joint savings bank account and withdrawn by the appellant and another party. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on grounds of being time-barred and lack of proof of deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was time-barred and that no deficiency in service had been proved. The court rejected the appellant's argument that a legal notice served extended the limitation period, stating that limitation starts from the date when the cause of action accrues.
Issues: The issues involved the non-receipt of the maturity value of Kisan Vikas Patras, the timing of the alleged payment, and the applicability of the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was time-barred and that no deficiency in service had been proved. The court also clarified that limitation starts from the date when the cause of action accrues, and subsequent events cannot extend it.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit.
ORDER :
SURJIT SINGH, J
1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, pleading following cause of action. Appellant had purchased Kisan Vikas Patras in the year 2000 and the total amount invested by her was to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac. On maturity of the Vikas Patras, after a period of six-and-a-half years, a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs was to be paid to her, in the month of September, 2006. Appellant lost the original Vikas Patras and approached respondent No.3, the Post Master of Post Office Jwalamukhi, from whom the certificates had been purchased, to issue duplicate Vikas Patras. She was required to complete certain formalities. She was also required to execute an indemnity bond on 06.11.2006, but nothing on account of maturity value of the Vikas Patras was paid to her. In July, 2007, a son of the appellant expired and she herself was also not enjoying good health, because of which she authorised respondent No.5, Smt. Saroj, an agent of the postal authorities, to take up the matter with respondent No.3. Respondent No.4, who happened to be a clerk in the Post Office at Jwalamukhi, apprised the appellant of the numbers of Vikas Patras, upon which the appellant made four separate applications on 08.01.2007, for issuance of duplicate Vikas Patras. In the month of February, 2007, one Smt. Rani Sood, also an agent of postal authorities, approached the complainant and asked her to open a savings bank account at Post Office Jwalamukhi, so that the money payable on account of maturity value of the Vikas Patras was credited in that account. The appellant gave a sum of Rs. 100/- to said Smt. Rani Sood for opening the savings bank account and an account was opened at Post Office Jwalamukhi, which bore No.1312039. On 24.07.2007, a letter was received by the appellant from respondent No.3, intimating that maturity value of the Vikas Patras already stood paid to her by means of a cheque dated 25.01.2007. Appellant alleged that she had never received any cheque nor was she paid the money in cash and that the entire amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs payable on account of maturity value of the certificates was due to her from the postal authorities, i.e. respondents No.1, 2 & 3.
3. A common reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, in which it was admitted that Kisan Vikas Patras had been purchased by the appellant in the year 2000 and that on maturity of those Vikas Patras, a sum of Rs. 2,02,340/- was payable in September, 2006. It was stated that the said amount of money had been paid by means of a cheque bearing No. S-5875637 on 25.01.2007 and the appellant had got the amount of that cheque credited in savings bank account No.1881856, Post Office Nurpur and the said savings bank account had been opened by the appellant and one Shri Dinesh Sharma on 17.02.2007. It was stated that on the very day of opening of the account and crediting of the amount of cheque in that account, i.e. 17.02.2007, a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs had been withdrawn from that account. It was admitted that a savings bank account had been opened in Post Office Jwalamukhi by the appellant, as alleged in the complaint.
4. After the reply was filed by respondents No.1 to 4, Shri Dinesh Sharma, who was shown to be a joint account holder with the appellant in the savings bank account opened on 17.02.2007, and from which account a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs was stated to have been withdrawn, was made a party. Said Dinesh Sharma filed a reply, in which he stated that the story put up by the appellant regarding loss of original certificates was a concocted one and that, in fact, the appellant had given the Vikas Patras to one Shri Suresh Chaudhary and one Shri Ashwani Dogra, a fri
