AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE petitioner/complainant in C. M. P. No. 26/2002 in unnumbered O. P. of 2002 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore is the appellant herein.
HIS case was as follows: He had made two deposits for a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000 with OP1 on 17. 5. 1996 for a period of 26 months. On 6. 3. 1997, OP1 paid the interest and subsequently failed to pay the interest. The deposits matured on 16. 7. 1998. The Registrar Chits had issued a certificate of refund of the said fixed deposits by letter dated 12. 8. 1998. The complainant met the opposite parties several times in person and requested them to pay the matured value with accrued interest. The opposite parties promised to repay the same, but did not do. In June, 2000 when the complainant requested the opposite parties they alleged certain misfeasance against the then Secretary that he had misappropriated some amounts from the bank and that inquiry had been initiated against him. They promised to pay the amount to the complainant as soon as the inquiry got over. Because of such a representation the complainant did not initiate legal proceedings against them in time. The complainant met the opposite parties on 20. 6. 2000, 8. 8. 2000, 25. 7. 2001 and 8. 1. 2002 and on subsequent dates and requested them to pay the deposit amounts. The opposite parties repeated the same excuse. The complainant also was asked to give evidence in the criminal case against the Secretary about his deposits. OP1 sent a letter to the complainant on 10. 4. 2002 admitting the deposits, however, said that the deposits were not registered in the accounts book and repudiated the complainant''s claim. Because of the assurance given by the opposite parties, the complainant thought that the amount would be settled to him early and hence there was delay in filing the case. The delay had therefore to be condoned and if it was not condoned, the complainant would be put to serious loss and hardship. The opposite parties filed version disputing the deposits and also denying the allegations in the complaint that the complainant was paid interest and that he met them on several dates and that they promised to refund the deposits once the criminal case got over. The maturity date of the deposit receipts had already expired on 16. 7. 1998. The complainant ought to have filed a civil suit within the period of limitation or taken necessary action through the Consumer Forum for refund of the same within the prescribed time. The reasons for delay in filing the case were not at all acceptable. The then Secretary of the Bank and the complainant might have been hand in glove with each other and would have created false deposit receipts and that was the reason why the complainant had not filed a suit or taken action before the Consumer Forum. The delay of 2 years 4 months and 5 days had not been explained. When the limitation time expired in money claims, the petitioner could not pray for condonation of delay. The long delay had not been explained.
The District Forum found that the delay of 2 years 4 months and 5 days had not been explained to its satisfaction and, therefore, it was not condonable. In that view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition came to be dismissed. .
IT is as against that the present appeal has been filed. We are of the view that the District Forum had taken two technical views in dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. It is a case of deposit and the limitation will begin to run from the date of demand and refusal. The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had been promising to settle the claim after the criminal case against the then Secretary got over. The complainant had given various dates on which, he claimed, he had met the opposite parties. The opposite parties were not at all justified in taking a stand that the claim was barred by limitation. Whatever the Secretary might have been done or might not have done and whether there was collusion between the complainant and the then Secretary, all these things might have to be investigated only through the inquiry in the main complaint. The District Forum itself had also adverted to this aspect and had dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not explained the delay. In our view, being a claim in respect of deposits, the limitation would begin to run under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, from the date of demand and refusal. Specific allegations have been made that the opposite parties had been promising to refund the amount. There was no refusal as such, according to the complainant. In any vent, the District Forum ought not to have taken such a technical view and it also did not behave the bank to take a stand that the claim was barred by limitation.
THE complainant is entitled to succeed. The delay, if any, in filing the complaint, shall stand condoned. The matter shall stand remitted to the District Forum. The District Forum shall direct the complaint to be numbered and thereafter dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.