JANAKI RANI vs Punjab National Bank

-NOTWITHSTANDING the earnest efforts made by the Counsel appearing for the appellant to persuade us to interfere with the findings entered by the State Commission, we see no grounds whatever justifying any such interference.

THE State Commission has gone to the evidence adduced in the case in minute detail and has given sound reasons in support of its conclusion that the case put forward by the complainant that the complainant''s Locker No. 277 in the Punjab National Bank, Faridabad Branch had been tampered with on May 10, 1994 and that valuable Gold and Silver Ornaments, Currency Notes etc. had been unauthorisedly removed from it could not be accepted as true. After having independently examined all the materials available on the record, we are in complete agreement with the said finding recorded by the State Commission. We further agree with the view expressed by the State Commission that the complaint filed by the complainant was clearly barred by limitation. The alleged incident of tampering with the locker is said to have taken place on September 23, 1988 whereas the complaint was filed before the State Commission only on January 5, 1992. Since this complaint was filed prior to the 18.6.93 on which date the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Ordinance came into force. Article 113 of the Limitation Act governs this case and it prescribes a period of limitation of three years commencing from the time when the right to sue accrue. The right to sue had accrued to the complainant on September 23, 1988 itself when the alleged unauthorised breaking of the locker is said to have occurred. The complaint filed, on 5th January, 1992 was thus clearly barred by limitation.

In the light of what we have stated above, we have no hesitation to uphold the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint filed before it by the present appellant. This appeal is totally devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed with costs, which we fix at Rs. 1,500/-. Appeal dismissed.