SAROJA vs SELVAN

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai Bench (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 557 of 2012 - Selvan Vs. Saroja by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner pledged 120 grams of jewels with OP/respondent on 23.11.2004 and availed loan for Rs.65,000/ -. Complainant paid Rs.8,000/ - on 29.01.2005 and later on paid Rs.30,000/ -. As complainant was not in a position to redeem jewels within one year and 7 days, complainant approached OP. Later on, the jewels could not be redeemed, as OP went to overseas countries in search of job. OP returned on 8.10.2010 and complainant approached for redemption and also sent legal notice. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum for return of jewels after receiving Rs.93,000/ - and also claimed compensation. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant pledged 105 grams of jewels instead of 120 grams and further submitted that as complainant did not redeem jewels within time limit of one year and 7 days and inspite of notice dated 15.12.2005, complainant failed to redeem the jewels, they were sold in public auction. It was further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to return 105 grams of jewels after receiving Rs.1,22,000/ - from the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1000/ - as costs. Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that the complaint was within limitation, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint as barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that loan was obtained by the complainant after pledging jewels on 23.11.2004 and jewels were to be redeemed within a period of 1 year and 7 days. Admittedly, complainant did not pay full amount within the prescribed period and did not redeem the jewels and filed this complaint in the year 2010 on the basis of notice dated 18.10.2010. Complaint was to be filed within a period of 2 years from the date of redemption, i.e, one year and 7 days from the date of pledging jewels or from date of auction. By that time, complainant neither paid full amount, nor requested OP to redeem jewels. Complainant simply mentioned in the complaint that as OP was out of country for a long period, complaint was not filed and claimed limitation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (2007) 3 SCC 142 - Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. and has drawn our attention to paragraph 11 of the judgment which runs as under: ''''11. Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission nor the National Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The term "cause of action" is of wide import and has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. It refers to all circumstances or bundle of facts which if proved or admitted entitles the plaintiff (complainant) to the relief prayed for. In the context of limitation with reference to a contract for carriage of goods, the date of cause of action may refer to the date on which the goods are entrusted, date of issue of consignment note, the date stipulated for delivery, the date of delivery, the date of refusal to deliver, the date of intimation of carrier''s request to wait for delivery as the goods are being traced, the date of intimation of loss of goods, or the date of acknowledgement of liability ''''.

WE agree with the legal position narrated by Hon ''ble Apex Court, but this citation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case at all. Complainant has not filed any application under Section 24 -A for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Limitation cannot be claimed by the complainant on the basis of notice dated 18.10.2010 and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint being barred by limitation.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.