AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this First Appeal, by Sri Vasavi Cooperative Bank Ltd., challenge is to order dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint No. 76 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent, has, inter alia, directed the Appellant herein to restore pledged 5000 equity shares along with accrued interest @ 18% per annum to the Complainant from 04.03.2003 till realization.
AT the outset, Mr. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has submitted that the said order is vitiated on the short ground that despite a preliminary objection regarding delay in filing the Complaint having been raised before the State Commission, it has failed to pass any specific order on the said objection. According to the learned Counsel, the question of limitation goes to the very root of jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, which the State Commission has failed to examine.
PER contra, learned Counsel, appearing for the Complainant, submits that the mere fact that the State Commission proceeded to decide the case on merits, it can be safely inferred that the delay in filing the Complaint stood condoned. Having perused the impugned order, we find that there is not even a whisper in the entire record to indicate that the question of limitation was considered by the State Commission at the stage of proceedings and, therefore, the State Commission has committed a material irregularity in proceeding to decide the Complaint on merits without adjudicating on the question of limitation.
THE nature and scope of Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act (for short "the Act"), 1986 came up for consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SBI Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), 2009 5 SCC 121, wherein it was held as follows: "11. XXX XXX XXX
It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires the consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, "shall not admit a complaint" occurring in Section 24 -A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within the limitation period prescribed thereunder."
THE Apex Court went on to hold as follows: "12. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24 -A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."
IN view of the said authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that having failed to take notice of Section 24 -A of the Act, the State Commission Committed a serious illegality in law in proceeding to dispose of the Complaint on merits.
CONSEQUENTLY , we allow the Appeal; set aside the impugned order; and remit the case back to the State Commission for deciding the question of limitation and if the State Commission is convinced that a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the Complaint has been made out and decides to condone the delay, then it may proceed to decide the Complaint on merits afresh.
THE Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
SINCE the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2009 and the Complainant is stated to be aged 96 years, we request the State Commission to try to dispose of the Complaint as expeditiously as practicable, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
THE parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 28.04.2015 for further proceedings.
A set of documents, stated to have been filed by the Complainant on 03.04.2013 (Vol. III), has since been returned to him.