The limitation period for filing a consumer complaint begins upon account defreezing, not on subsequent communications, establishing that the complaint was filed beyond this timeframe.

The present appeal is the first appeal filed by the complainant against the dismissal of his complaint. Counsel for the appellant / complainant submits that he has a good case on merit. In view of the fact that in number of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that endeavour should be made by the Commissions to dispose off the matters on merits instead of dismissing it on technical grounds, like delay etc., and in view of the fact that this is a first appeal against the order of the State Commission, lenient view is taken and delay is condoned.

First Appeal

1. The first appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.12.20217 in complaint no. 156 of 2010 whereby complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is the holder of account no.002901001508 with the respondent bank. He was enjoying the facility of automatic transfer of his money to fixed deposit earning interest at the prevailing rates of fixed deposit whenever the amount in his account exceeds the minimum deposit requirement. The complainant purchased two demand drafts no.264612 and 264613 of Rs.25.00 lakh each, which were payable at Gurgaon in favour of Mahesh Sharda and Sanju Bansal. The complainant applied on 25.04.2005 alongwith all the necessary documents for cancellation of the demand drafts and for crediting the amount of the said demand drafts in his above said account. The contention of the appellant is that respondent did not credit the amount of those FDs in his account till 20.03.2008 and this has resulted in loss of interest to him for the period 25.04.2005 to 23.03.2008 and that such delay, amounts to deficiency in service. On these contentions, appellant had claimed for loss of 156.2 percent returns upto 28.03.2008 calculated as per return shown on the internet in the ICICI Infrastructure Mutual Fund amounting to Rs.78,10,000/-. He has also claimed loss of interest @ 18% per annum from 20.03.2008 till the date of filing of complaint, amounting to Rs.3546504/- and thus claimed total sum of Rs.1,13,56,504.42p (rupees one crore thirteen lakh fifty six thousand five hundred four and forty two paisa) alongwith cost of proceedings, interest pendente lite and damages.

3. On receiving the notice of the complaint, the respondent filed its written version. The plea taken by the respondent was that appellant was found involved in a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and on the instructions of CBI, account of the appellant was freezed on 01.07.2005. It is submitted that since the account was freezed, the account could not have been operated and, therefore, amount of the DDs were not credited in his account. Although on 05.09.2006, the appellant had served upon the bank an order dated 31.08.2006 of Metropolitan Magistrate of Patiala House, where learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed defreezing of the said account, the appellant was, thereafter asked to complete certain formalities and finally the amount was credited on 20.03.2008. It is submitted that complaint is hopelessly barred. Cause of action in favour of the appellant started running since the date he deposited the demand draft with the bank for crediting the money i.e. from 25.04.2005. It is submitted that two years from that date had expired in year 2007. It is submitted that even otherwise, cause of action must be deemed to have started running from the date the amount of demand draft was credited in his account i.e. 20.03.2008 and yet no steps were taken by the appellant till May i.e. 05.05.2010 when the complaint was filed. It is submitted that complain