OM PRAKASH vs Branch Manager Annagran Finance Ltd

THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11th January 2012 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (the "State Commission ") in appeal no. 1316 of 2010. The brief facts of the complaint as per the petitioner are as follows: The respondents approached the petitioner ''s wife Smt Jageshwari Devi, 227/288 but 288/240/1 Laxmi Sadan, Arya Nagar, Lucknow 226 004 (Uttar Pradesh) and got deposited amount and issued a letter as detailed below: Reg. no. 1, 7463, LET no. 1 74970 Deposit no. IUCC 1031291, Interest rate 14% Amount of Deposit is Rs. 11,715/- Interest amount Rs. 803/- Interest from date 25.04.1998 Pre - Maturity Date 15.10.1998 Warrant no. 25302 Interest amount payable Rs. 12,559/-

The respondents failed to pay back the amount as per promise letter. The correspondence and personal approach at the local office at Lucknow with the respondents, application sent registered A/D letter under RTI Act, 2005 enclosing Indian Postal Order no. 57 E 74 8949 on 06.05.2009 but the respondent did not acknowledge the letter and also did not care to give any information till date. A complaint was filed with a delay of more than 10 years. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, Lucknow (the ''District Forum) are as follows: "The amount of deposit with interest as per promise of the defendants after maturity date was payable on 15.10.1998. In spite of all efforts, defendants failed to comply with their own promise. The delay caused due to above reasons and other unavoidable circumstances ".

The District Forum vide order dated 20th July 2010 dismissed complaint by stating as follows: "Shri Om Prakash complainant in person complained that he moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the complaint. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that the amount of deposit with interest as per promise of the opposite parties after maturity date was payable on 15.10.1998, but inspite of all efforts, the defendants failed to comply their promise then the complainant sent notice to the opposite parties on 03.10.2009, but the opposite parties gave no weight on notice then the complainant filed this complaint. As such it appears that cause of action arose on 15.10.1998 whereas the complainant has filed this complaint today. It is settled law that delay cannot be condoned on the basis of letter or notice. The complainant has filed no affidavit in support of his application. As such from the perusal of file, it appears that complainant has failed to explain the delay in filing the complaint, therefore, complainant ''s application under Section 5 Limitation is hereby rejected ".

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal no. 1316 of 2010 before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal by stating as follows: "Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the limitation issue and we find that the complainant of the appellant having been filed more than 10 years after the due date of repayment was really barred by limitation. It was a case of huge delay of one decade while in the case of limitation of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court reported in JT 210 (6) SC 205, it was a case of minor delay. The said citation is, therefore, not attracted. Moreover, the citation did not relate to a consume case rather it was a matter of auction and confirmation of the sale. The said principle will not come into application to the cases of the Consumer Protection Act. Section 24 A of the Act postulates that a complaint filed more than two years after the cause of action had arisen would be barred by time. The complainant of course could have explained ten years of delay but except that he kept on asking for his money during the period of 10 years, no other explanation has been offered. The date of maturity of his money was 15.10.1998, the complaint was filed in 2009 without any plausible explanation. The District Forum had rightly rejected it as time barred. We find no cogent reason to disagree with the findings of the Forum below. The plea of limitation is based on the principle that a party who keeps slumbered upon his or her rights for a long period should not be helped. This principle of law also serves as a warning and an eye opener to all that all persons should be alert and alive of their rights, claims and reliefs and prefer the same well within prescribed period. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which deserves to be dismissed summarily ".

Hence, the present revision petition. The grounds of the appeal are as follows: - the State Commission, Lucknow (UP) has overlooked the citation of the Supreme Court. - the Commission has also overlooked the period of correspondence and personal approached. - the appeal has been dismissed without taking any evidence/ defence etc. - the appeal has been dismissed on technical grounds in violation of direction issued by the Hon ''ble Court. The petitioner has sent a letter dated 19th March 2012 stating that because of his physical disability he is not in a position to take long journey and hence, requested that the case be decided on merit. We have gone through the records carefully. As per the revision petition the petitioner Shri Om Prakash described himself as an "Advocate in Person ". Being an advocate he should be well acquainted with the Consumer Act under which he is seeking compensation. He should also be aware of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is indisputable fact that the cause of action arose on 15th October 1998 and the complaint was filed with a delay of more than ten years. In his appeal for condonation of delay he has not given any reasons to provide sufficient cause to condone the delay. The District Forum and the State Commission have rightly dismissed the complaint and appeal. In view of the above, we find that there is no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " of this Commission within eight weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.