P.U.PETER vs DEVAPRABHA KURIES (P) LTD.

THE complainant in O.Ps. 383/2000 and 27/2001 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad are the appellants. THE said two complaints were disposed of by the District Forum, Palakkad by a common order. THErefore, these appeals are also being disposed of by this common order.

IN C.P. 393/2000 complainant''s claim was for return of the prize amount in a Kuri which he deposited as security for future subscription. The Kuri terminated in the month of March, 1998, the complaint was on 20.10.2000; seven months after the expiry of two years, and in the other case, O.P. 27/2001 also the prize amount was deposited by the complainant therein for securing the future subscription, the Kuri terminated in the month of March, 1998, complaint was filed only on 19.1.2001 beyond two years and 10 months of the termination of the Kuri. District Forum on the aforesaid data found both the complaints are barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed the complaint. It is the said dismissals that are now questioned by the respective complainants in Appeals 49/2002 and 50/2002. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the approach made by the District Forum is faulty as according to the learned Counsel the transaction is such that the element of trust is involved consequently the bar of limitation could not have been put against the claim. It is also urged alternatively the period of limitation could start only from the date of refusal of the payment by the complainant for the return of the amount. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions in AIR 1956 Andhra Pradesh 218; AIR 1962 Patna 372; AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 276; and AIR 1974 Andhra Pradesh page 8 in support of the aforesaid argument. When a specific provision is provided as to the period within which the proceeding has to commence the general provision under the Limitation Act cannot be ipso facto applicable. Section 24A, Sub-section (1) enjoins, the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years of the date of accrual of the cause of action. The section is specific and clear as to the commencement of the two years the same is the accrual of the cause of action. Having regard to the said provision the question that could arise is as to when the cause of action could have arisen with due regard to the allegations in the respective complaints. Cause action is the bundle of facts which the plaintiff relies to claim the relief. The facts alleged by the complainant is that the was a subscriber to the Kuri of which the respective opposite parties were the Foreman, he prized the Kuri and deposited the prize amount with the Foreman as security for future subscriptions. The function of the deposits thus is admittedly as security for the future subscription. Once that function disappears complainant will get the right to claim the return of the said amount. On that day he gets the cause of action to claim it. The learned Counsel at this juncture would maintain that there was an obligation for the Foreman to pay interest on the said amount and, therefore, the cause of action need not be on the termination of the Kuri. In judging the cause of action, the liability to pay interest cannot have nexus inasmuch as the very deposit is not with the condition that as and when the complainant demands it would be released. In fact, the complainant had no right to demand the said deposit at any time before the termination of the Kuri. That makes the distinction of this deposit from a fixed deposit or any other deposit. Here, his right to claim the amount arises on the termination of the Kuri. In view of the above, we do not see anything to interfere, appeals fail and they are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.