AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 11. 10. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed being merit less.
BRIEFLY stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) had been contributing towards the employees provident fund while posted in the Punjab State Electricity Board. On his retirement, respondent No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 27,340 through the Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala. However, appellant represented to respondent No. 1 that he had contributed much more than the amount paid to him, upon which an inquiry was conducted as per letter dated 30. 11. 2004 and ultimately he was told vide letter dated 12. 1. 2005 that no balance payment remained due in respect of his contribution. Appellant again represented to respondent No. 1 and as per letter dated 13. 5. 2005 which was forwarded to R. P. F. C. , Chandigarh, he was again informed vide letter dated 25. 8. 2005 that no balance payment was due. After serving legal notice under Section 80 CPC , the complaint was filed. After hearing Counsel for the complainant, the complaint was dismissed as time-barred by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 11. 10. 2007.
Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.
WE have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. Neeraj Sharma and carefully gone through the file. A perusal of letter Annexure C-9 shows that appellant (complainant) was informed vide letter dated 12. 1. 2005 that no balance amount remained payable to him. Thus, cause of action had accrued to him on the receipt of said letter dated 12. 1. 2005. However, present complaint has been filed on 4. 10. 2007 which is clearly time-barred as it has not been filed within a period of two years from the accrual of cause of action on 12. 1. 2005 in view of Section 24a of Consumer Protection Act.
COUNSEL for appellant contended that appellant had sent another detailed representation dated 25. 2. 2005 whereby he cast his doubt about the manner in which the inquiry had been conducted by the officials deputed by respondent No. 1 to look into his grievance and he requested to conduct another fact finding inquiry. The copy of letter is Annexure A-2. He further contended that head office of respondent No. 1 issued letter dated 9. 3. 2005 to respondent No. 1 to look again into the matter and the copy of the letter is Annexure A3. Thereafter, he received another letter, whose copy is Annexure A4 dated 19. 4. 2005 from the head office intimating him that his representation had been marked to respondent No. 1 at Chandigarh for redressal and he would get the information in due course but despite assurances, no information was received so, thereafter, he addressed several letters and even sent legal notice. He further contended that after issuance of legal notice dated 29. 8. 2005 addressed to respondent No. 1, he received letter dated 16. 11. 2005 from respondent No. 1 stating that report of enforcement officer was awaited and he would be informed accordingly. On the basis of this letter, he contended that the matter is still open and had not been closed so, cause of action was continuing one and would start running from the date when he would be informed by respondent No. 1 about the status of his representation. For this contention, he placed reliance upon on authority of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No. 3096 of 2005 titled M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. v. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. , II (2007) CPJ 35 (SC ). In para-12 of the said judgment, it was observed as under: "in this case, the consignment was entrusted to the appellant on 10. 5. 1996. On 8. 11. 1996, the respondent instructed the appellant to re-book the consignment. On 8. 8. 1998, 13. 10. 1998, 7. 11. 1998 and 8. 12. 1998, the respondent demanded delivery. By letters dated 15. 12. 1998, 21. 6. 1998 and 3. 7. 1999, the appellant assured the respondent that it was in the process of locating the goods and requested the respondent to wait and assured that it will inform about the status. Thereafter the appellant did not inform the status. The complaint has been filed within two years from the date of receipt of the said letter dated 3. 7. 1999 and is in time. In fact in view of the request of the appellant to the respondent to wait till the consignment was traced, the limitation for an action would not start running until there was a communication from the appellant either informing about the loss or expressing its inability to deliver or refusal to deliver, or until the respondent makes a demand for delivery or payment of value of the consignment after waiting for a reasonable period and there is non-compliance. Therefore, the complaint is not barred under Section 24a of CP Act. "
In the above said authority, appellant had assured the respondent that it was in the process of locating the goods and requested the respondent to wait and assured that it will inform about the status and thereafter appellant did not inform the status and the complaint was filed within two years from the date of receipt of said letter dated 3. 7. 1999 and it was held to be in time as no final status was mentioned. However, in the present case, respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 12. 1. 2005 Annexure C-9 had rejected the claim of the appellant by stating that no balance amount for payment remained due. Thus, cause of action started running from 12. 1. 2005. Subsequent representations or statement of respondents mentioning that inquiries were being conducted would not extend the period of limitation. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine.
COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.