CH. A.N. RAJU vs CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA BANK

THE complainant''s case it that he had in 1957 invented Transplanters-cum-Injectors for rice and other crops and was awarded Gold Medal of Best Invention Award in 1962. THEreafter also he had been engaged in the development of new products for increasing food production, labour efficiency and saving costly fertilizer. Patronising the development of such product, the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation granted Rs. 1,12,500/- as term loan while the respondent Andhra Bank (for short ''the Bank'') sanctioned 2 lacs as working capital in 1980. THE respondent, Bank released only Rs. 22,643/- for working capital operations. In November, 1981 the Bank applied credit squeeze. It may be mentioned here that the complainant did not start any commercial production but continued his invention work. THE complainant had executed a Promissory Note in favour of the Bank at the time of grant of loan. In November, 1984 he was persuaded by the Bank to sign an acknowledgment of the debt and also offered to help him in reviving credit facilities and waiver of interest. THE complainant executed the acknowledgment letter, but the Bank instead of releasing the promised credit facility filed a suit in 1985 for the recovery of the amount due from him.

COMPLAINANT''s contention is that some alteration and forgeries were committed in the documents which were filed by the Bank in the Court. The suit was finally dismissed on 4th February, 1991. According to the complainant by squeezing the working capital account the Bank is guilty of deficiency in service. He has claimed various amounts as damages which we need not refer for the purpose of this order. The Bank filed a counter in which they disputed the limit of the working capital allowed by the Bank. According to the Bank it had sanctioned only 1.80 lacs divided into four types of facilities viz. Open Cash Credit - Rs. 50,000/-, Lock & Key Cash Credit - Rs. 50,000/-, Clean Bill Purchase facility - Rs. 50,000/- and Documentary Bill Purchase to the extent of Rs. 30,000/-. It is further the case of the Bank that the complainant had misrepresented in his loan application letter dated 25th February, 1980 that he requried loan for producing certain machines. In fact the machine which he had claimed in his loan application to be produced by him had not been even developed by him by that time. The loan was sanctioned for commercial production of the machines but the complainant failed to start any commercial productivity. Since the loan was in the form of working capital which is generally used for purchasing raw material and for other incidental expenses, there was no purchase for which the amount sanctioned could be further released by the Bank in the absence of any commercial activity. In fact, whatever amount had been released, the same was utilised by the complainant for different purposes. The machine was still at research and development stage. The dealings of the complainant with the respondent Bank had not been fair. There was no deficiency in the rendering of services nor denial of such services on the part of the Bank.

At the threshold the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank argued that the present complaint is a stale one as far as the question of limitation is concerned and, therefore, it should not be entertained by this Commission. We are of the opinion that the said objection has force. It is the complainant''s own case that the credit squeeze was applied by the Bank in November, 1981 and since then his work is suffering for want of funds. Therefore, the cause of action had arisen to the complainant in November, 1981 while the present complaint was filed on 1.8.1991 i.e. much after the expiry of the period for filing a suit for damages.

THE petitioner argued that the working capital facility sanctioned is of a recurring nature and till it is withdrawn or cancelled by the Bank, it is deemed to be operative.. It is not the case of the complainant that after November, 1981, he ever applied to the Bank for grant of the loan and that he was refused and thus giving him a fresh cause of action. In fact, the respondent Bank withdrew the facility of loan granted to the complainant when they filed a suit against him in 1985 for the recovery of the outstanding dues. It is also the contention of the complainant that in 1984, the Bank had made an offer to help him to revive the credit facility. Even if the contention is taken to be correct even then the complaint petition was filed after 7 years of that offer. Moreover as discussed above that offer came to an end when the Bank filed the suit in 1985 for recovery of the dues from the complainant.

THE petitioner''s next argument is that the civil suit filed by the Bank was dismissed in 1991 and during the pendency of the said suit he could not have filed his complaint as in that suit the Bank had filed certain documents which had been materially altered or forged and he wanted a decision of the Civil Court first about those documents. We fail to understand how this argument is material in this case. THE pendency of the civil suit was no bar to the filing of this complaint by the claimant regarding deficiency, if any, in the rendering of service by the Bank. If any document had been forged or materially altered by the Bank the complainant could have raised that objection before this Commission. THE dismissal of the civil suit filed by the Bank does not give any fresh cause of action to the claimant. The claimant further argued that the Law of Limitation has not been made applicable to the proceedings before various Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Of course, the Law of Limitation has not been expressly made applicable to such proceedings, but there are various rulings of this Commission to the effect that the general principles of law of Limitation are to be applied to such proceedings in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. If a remedy under the general law has become barred under the law of Limitation, a valuable right accrues to the other party. Hence a consumer cannot come before the Redressal Forum and argue that his time barred claim should be adjudicated upon by the Forum as the Law of Limitation is not applicable to the proceeding before it. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the present complaint is hopelessly a stale one. It has been consistently held by this Commission that such stale complaints cannot be entertained. In view of the above finding we need not refer to the other contentions of the parties. Accordingly, we dismiss the present petition'' but making no order as to-costs. Petition dismissed.