TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Meena Ramanathan, I/C President and V.V. Seshubabu, Member – (Judicial)
Shiv Kumar – Appellant
versus
Dr. Podishetty Laxmaiah Pandari
(Died) Per Lrs. and Ors. – Respondents
F.A. No.213 of 2021
Decided on 1.5.2024

IMPORTANT POINT
Cause of Action – Every complaint shall be filed within two years from the date of cause of action.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal – Services – Chit Funds – Limitation – Demand for refund of amount – Under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, every complaint shall be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. In the case on hand all the promissory notes are dated 23.05.2002. In the entire complaint it is not mentioned on what subsequent dates the complainant demanded for the refund of amounts under three promissory notes/deposits – On facts, it is admitted by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 that the amounts were deposited by the complainant in the chit fund business and the amounts realized from the deposits were used to be adjusted towards the instalments of chits, and failure to refund the deposits/pro-notes amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. However, ex-facie Ex.A-2 are the promissory notes and limitation is three years from the date of execution of promissory note. The same yardstick can be applied for the failure to honour the demand within two years as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act – Therefore, in the case on hand there is no evidence to show on what date a demand was made and when it was refused. In those circumstances the date of execution of the promissory notes shall be taken into consideration to calculate the period of limitation. The non-payment of amounts under the Ex.A-2 promissory notes cannot extend the period of limitation by itself. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is barred by time – Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.

Held : U/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, every complaint shall be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. In the case on hand all the promissory notes are dated 23.05.2002. In the entire complaint it is not mentioned on what subsequent dates the complainant demanded for the refund of amounts under three promissory notes/deposits. It is mentioned in page 3 of the complaint that several times the complainant demanded the opposite party No.2 to pay the amounts but, he dodged the payment and it came to the notice of the complainant that the opposite party No.2 and other opposite parties owed much more amounts to the others also and then the complainant approached the community elders who issued notice to the opposite parties to settle the matter but, it was failed, due to adamant and arrogant behavior of the opposite parties and then the complainant even issued a legal notice. Despite mentioning all details, no document is forthcoming evidencing the above aspects with dates. So, for all practical purposes the complaint should have been filed within two years from 23.05.2002 but, it is filed on 15.03.2005. Since, it is admitted by the opposite parties No.1 to 3 that the amounts were deposited by the complainant in the chit fund business and the amounts realized from the deposits were used to be adjusted towards the installments of chits, and failure to refund the deposits/pro-notes amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. However, ex-facie Ex.A2 are the promissory notes and limitation is three years from the date of execution of promissory note. The same yardstick can be applied for the failure to honour the demand within two years as per Sec.24A of the Consumer Protection Act. Surprisingly, in the case on hand there is no evidence to show on what date a demand was made and when it was refused. In those circumstances the date of execution of the promissory notes shall be taken into consideration to calculate the period of limitation. The non-payment of amounts under the Ex.A2 promissory notes cannot extend the period of limitation by itself. Therefore, we are of the view that the complaint is barred by time.

Even though appellant/opposite party No.3 is one of the Directors of the Opposite party No.1 Company, he had not executed any of the promissory notes in the capacity as a borrower along with opposite party No.2. As all the promissory notes are executed by opposite party No.2 in the individual capacity but not on behalf of the opposite party No.1 Company, no liability can be fastened on the opposite party No.3/appellant being the one of the Director of Opposite party No.1 Company at the relevant time. So, on this ground also, the impugned order is not sustainable as against the appellant.

It is the argument of the appellant counsel that when the complaint was filed for the refund of deposit amount, the Commission below misinterpreted the same as the chit amount and without a pleading for the refund of chit amount, the impugned order was passed fastening the liability against opposite parties No.1 to 3. It is to be observed the dictum of law that admitted facts need not be proved. In the counter affidavit/written version, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 admitted about the deposits given by the complainant and appropriation of deposited amounts towards adjustment of chit installments. Probably the Commission below might have carried away by referring the deposited amount as chit amount. It is not such a grave mistake committed by the Commission below, when the totality of all the facts and circumstances of the case are taken into consideration, though, the case law relied upon by the appellant counsel is not in dispute from any angle. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable against appellant, consequently, the appeal is to be allowed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the impugned order, dated 01.08.2008 in CC 894/2005 of the District Consumer Redressal Forum-I. Hyderabad, as against Appellant/opposite party No.3. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited (along with interest accrued) at the time of preferring the appeal, ofcourse, after the lapse of appeal time. [Para 14 to 17].

Result: Appeal allowed.