Federal Bank Ltd. vs THOMAS VARGHESE, KOTTACKATTATHU

THE opposite parties in O.P. No. 189/95 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta are the appellants.

THE complainant alleged before the District Forum that he availed a loan of Rs. 7,500/- on 3.3.1998 from the opposite party Bank offering the security of a National Savings Certificate worth Rs. 10,000/-. His grievance is though the loan transaction was closed on 25.1.1993, inspite of demand for return of the said National Savings Certificate, the opposite parties withheld it, thereby he suffered financial loss which would amount to deficiency of serivce and also negligence. Consequently he wanted direction to return the National Savings Certificate as well as compensation. He sought for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 32,000/- which according to him was the value of the certificate and also other reliefs. The opposite parties filed a version on 14.9.1995 wherein they maintained that the complaint is barred by limitation and also that though they were ready and willing to return of the certificate the complainant did not collect the same. On 24.11.1995 they filed an additional version stating that the complainant had availed another loan and for the default in not paying the said loan the opposite parties had instituted O.S. 161/94 before the Sub-Court, Pathanamthitta; they claimed that the Bank has a lien on the aforesaid certificates. The District Forum disposed of the complaint holding that, the opposite party shall pay in lieu of compensation, interest at the bank rate on loan from 25.1.1993 on the maturity value of Rs. 20,000/- till the said certificate is returned to the complainant or payment of the maturity value with interest.

Aggrieved by the said direction the opposite parties preferred Appeal No. 1277/96. This Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and remitted the matter to the District Forum for fresh disposal. After the remand P.W. 1 was examined on the side of tthe complainant and on behalf of the opposite party R.W. 1 and 2 were examined. They produced Exts. B1 to B3.

THE District Forum allowed the complainant to realise the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 10,000/- which is the face value of the National Savings Certificate from 25.1.1993 till date of returning of the National Savings Certificate to the complainant. THE District Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the said direction again the opposite party, has come up in appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant sought to maintain that the complaint itself is barred by limitation and therefore, no relief could have been granted. The learned Counsel pointed out that, the evidence since would show that, the National Savings Certificate matured 1992 and the loan having been closed on 25.1.1993, the complaint is barred by limitation as the same was filed only on 15.7.1995. Accoring to the learned Counsel the assumption that the complaint is not barred by limitation as the National Savings Certificate matured only in 1994 cannot be supported and the assumption since the national Savings Certificate was not returned the cause of action must be deemed to be a continuing cause of action cannot also hold good. The case of the complainant was that inspite of his demand the certificates were not returned by the appellants, as a matter of fact the appellant''s stand was, though they offered to release the National Savings Certificate the complainant did not collect it. In such circumstances it was maintained by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the period of limitation should start from the date where the loan transaction was closed which on 25.1.1993, particularly when the National Savings Certificate got matured in 92 itself. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent maintained that, the very additional version would show that there was no occassional possibility of the opposite party/appellant offering the National Savings Certificate. Therefore, according to him the complaint is not barred by limitation.

THE remand order of this Commission on 12th May, 1997 my learned predecessor observed in para (6) "If the certificate is not returned immediately that would cause injury to the complainant and it will not benefit the Bank also except in regard to their contention regarding lien which we already referred to. In the circumstance pending disposal of the case we direct the opposite party to return the certificate to the complainant. THE opposite party will return the certificate within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order". Though after remand District Forum has to consider the question of limitation also, in considering that the effect of the said direction to return the certificate too has to be considered. Now the District Forum has found that the complaint is not barred by limitation. THE complainant''s grievance as to deficiency of service and negligence was the alleged failure of the opposite party in not returning the National Savings Certificate. THErefore the cause of action starts from the date of refusal of the opposite party to return the certificate inspite of the loan having been closed. As to this aspect what is observed in para (6) of the remand order assumes significantly this Commission directed the opposite party to return the certificate to the complainant and accordingly, it is submitted, the certificate has already been returned. If as a matter of fact the complaint was barred by limitation, the direction to return the National Savings Certificate could not have been made. So it could be said, by necessary implication the very remand itself would support the respondent''s case that the complaint was not barred by limitation. Apart from the same in the first version the opposite party said though they were willing to return the certificate the complainant did not collect it. This would show, even according to the opposite party there was no refusal to give the certificate. THE claim of him in the second version being inconsistent cannot take away the benefit of the stand of the opposite party in the first version. In view of the said aspects one cannot say that the complaint is barred by limitation. As regards the award of compensation, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the maturity value as on the date of the institution of the complaint when is taken into account, it could be seen that the fixing of the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is not in any way on the higher side. We see enough force in the said submission. With due regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances we do not find anything to interfere in the order of the District Forum. The appeal is liable to be dismissed which accordingly is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.