PARSHOTAM LAL SANGHI vs Partap Steel Rolling Mills

WE have heard the appellant in person and have perused the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II] against which this appeal have been filed. WE have also gone through the record of the Complaint Case 384/2000 decided by order dated 11.8.2000].

THE appellant filed the complaint before the District Forum-II praying for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to make payment to him of a sum of Rs. 1,680/- as the amount of redemption of debenture certificates 16 in number and bearing Certificate Nos. 15864 and 15865 [Annexures A-1 and A-2]. THE complainant also prayed for interest @ 15% from 1.7.1993 till payment. The allegations made in the complaint, stated briefly, are as under : The complainant submitted an application to the opposite party i.e. Partap Steel Rolling Mills (1935) Ltd., Partap Estates, Chheharta, Amritsar through collecting agent, Punjab National Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh with cheque payable at Chandigarh. The complainant was allotted 16 Non Convertible Debenture (NCD) dated 1.12.1987 of Rs. 100/- each comprising of debenture certificates referred to above as Annexures A-1 and A-2, the allotment was affected from 8.10.1987. According to the terms of the allotment, interest @ 15% p.a. was to be paid half yearly with effect from the date of allotment i.e. 8.10.1987 on 30th June and 31st December every year till redemption. It was alleged that the debentures were to be redeemed in three instalments of Rs. 35/- each on 8.10.1993; 8.10.1994 and lastly on 8.10.1995. The complainant received the interest warrant dated 1.7.1993 for the period from 1.1.1993 to 30th June, 1993 and since then he did not receive interest nor any instalment of redemption. It was further alleged that the complainant sent debenture certificates duly discharged along with a letter dated 13.5.2000, sent under registered/A.D. Post, requesting the Company to send redemption amount with interest till the date of payment. The copy of the letter has been placed on record as Annexure B. The copy of the postal receipt is enclosed as Annexure-C while the copy of the A.D. receipt has been enclosed as Annexure D. There was no response from the opposite party even after the expiry of period of one month from the date the said letter was despatched by the complainant and this amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In para 6 of the complaint it was specifically mentioned that the cause of action arose when no payment was made despite the said registered letter dated 13.5.2000. It was also averred that the cause of action was subsisting and the same arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum-II.

It appears from perusal of the order under appeal that the District Forum-II was of the view that the cause of action arose lastly on 8th October, 1995 and the complainant did not initiate the action by filing the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation of two years under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter to be referred as the C.P. Act]. The District Forum-II accordingly dismissed the complaint in limine as being time barred by limitation.

THE complainant felt aggrieved by the order of the District Forum-II and has filed this appeal. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, who was served with a notice. None appeared on behalf of the respondent before the Commission. As stated earlier, we have heard the appellant alone as the respondent failed to appear despite service of notice. We had issued notice to the respondent by way of abundant caution though the District Forum-II had dismissed the complaint in limine without issuing notice to the opposite party/respondent. The appellant has vehemently argued that the District Forum-II was wrong in holding that the cause of action arose lastly on 8th October, 1995 and the period of limitation started running with effect from that date because the cause of action in the instant case was subsisting and it was on 13.5.2000 when the complainant sent a registered letter attaching therewith the debenture certificates duly discharged for payment of the amount with interest which was not respondend to by the opposite party/respondent. The appellant contended that the cause of action continued and atleast the last time that it accrued to the complainant should be taken to the date when he sent the registered letter enclosing therewirth the duly discharged debenture certificates for payment of the redemption amount with interest at the stipulated rate. In our considered view, the cause of action in the given facts and circumstances cannot be said to finally arisen to the complainant on 8.10.1995 because by that date he had not even been asked by the opposite party to send the redemption certificate duly discharged for payment of the value of redemption along with interest at the stipulated rate. As a matter of fact, as per averments made in the complaint, the respondent did not communicate any action to the complainant regarding the aforesaid debenture certificates. It is pertinent to refer to Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act, which is reproduced as under : "24-A. Limitation Period-(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date, on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period of specified in Sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfied the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period : Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay."

It may be pointed out that Section 24(A) Sub-section (2) enables the District Forum-II or for that matter the State Commission and the National Commission as the case may be to entertain a complaint filed beyond the prescribed period of two years under Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act. In case the complainant is able to satisfy that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint prior to the date when the complaint was actually filed. In the instant case, the complainant has made sufficient averment of the facts under which he did not initiate action for recovery of the redemption amount of the debenture certificates and has categorically mentioned about the registered letter having sent to the opposite party/respondent on 13.5.2000. It is also to be borne in mind that the complainant has approached for the relief before the District Forum-II under the provisions of the C.P. Act which is primarily meant for the protection of the rights of the consumers. The District Forum-II did not think it proper to issue notice to the respondent/opposite party and to have the version of the respondent/opposite party in regard to the case of the complainant. The complaint was dismissed in limine and thereby disbelieving the averments made in the complaint for no valid reasons. The averments made in the complaint case cannot be disbelieved at the initial stage till the averments made in the complaint are controverted and denied by the other side. If we examine the averments made in the complaint and check the averments at their face value, the cause of action arose to the complainant on the date mentioned in the complaint which is stated to be 13.5.2000, the date when the registered letter as aforesaid was sent by the complainant to the opposite party/respondent and there was no response from the opposite party to the said letter.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, the District Forum-II committed an error in dismissing the complaint in limine. We are of the considered opinion that the complaint case deserves to be examined by the District Forum-II under the provisions of the C.P. Act. The appeal has considerable force and is allowed. The order of the District Forum-II is set aside. The complaint case is remanded to the District Forum-II which shall proceed to issue notice of the complaint case to the opposite party and decide the same in accordance with law. The complainant shall appear before the District Forum-II on 18.6.2001. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.