SPECIAL OFFICER, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP. & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs A.G. KALIA PERUMAL & ORS

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.03.2011, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 471/2008, "Special Officer, Primary Agricultural Co-op & Rural Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bank) vs A.G. Kalia Perumal & Ors.", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 23.01.2008, passed by the District Forum Tiruvarur in consumer complaint No. 22/2006, filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1 A.G. Kalia Perumal, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 A.G. Kalia Perumal stated in his consumer complaint No. 22/2006 filed before the District Forum that he obtained a loan of 1,63,000/- from the petitioner Bank in May 1994 for purchase of a tractor. The said loan was to be discharged within 9 years by making payment of 34,150/- per year with interest @12% p.a. According to the complainant, he discharged the entire debt within a period of 6 years by selling the tractor on 11.01.2001. However, on verification of the account, it came to his notice that the petitioner Bank had received a sum of 83,708/- in excess from the complainant. The complainant was entitled to certain eligible benefits as per schemes announced by the Government from time to time, which were denied to him. The matter was also brought to the notice of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies who asked the Bank vide letter dated 14.10.2003 to consider refund of excess amount of 70,282/- to the complainant. On the failure of the Bank to refund the amount, the consumer complaint in question, was filed seeking refund of a sum of 83,708/- with interest and to return the documents obtained from the complainant by the Bank and also to pay a compensation of 50,000/- towards harassment and 50,000/- towards loss suffered etc.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that the complaint was barred by limitation, as the same should have been filed within two years of the cause of action. The petitioner Bank stated that the cause of action would have accrued on 14.10.2003, when the Dy. Registrar sent letter to them for considering the plea of refund, but the complaint was filed only on 14.03.2006 and hence, was beyond limitation. The Bank further stated that on receipt of letter dated 14.10.2003 from the Deputy Registrar, inquiries were conducted by Land Valuation Officer, who submitted a report stating that the complainant was not eligible for One Time Settlement (OTS) under the schemes announced by the Government. The Bank was, therefore, not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. It was stated that the benefit of Government schemes could have been given to those persons only who had committed default for more than 13 months prior to 31.03.2001. Hence, the complainant was not eligible for OTS.

The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint stating that the complainant was entitled for refund of a sum of 70,282/- and the said amount should be paid to him alongwith interest @9% p.a. Referring to the assertion of the petitioner Bank that as per some Government orders, the complainant should have been defaulter for more than 13 months, the District Forum observed that the said Government order had not been filed before the District Forum. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Bank challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank stated that the Bank had recovered money from the complainant in accordance with the rules and regulations and there had been no excess recovery from him. The complainant was not eligible for the grant of benefit under any Government scheme or for OTS, as he was not a defaulter for more than 13 months. The revision petition should, therefore, be allowed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below be set aside.

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

In proceedings before this Commission, none has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent No. 1 or for respondent No. 2 & 3, despite sending notices to them from time to time. A perusal of the grounds of the revision petition as well as orders passed by the consumer fora below shows that the plea of the petitioner Bank on the issue of limitation has not been considered at all. The consumer complaint in question, was filed in the year 2006, whereas the cause of action had accrued much earlier to the complainant. The OP-2, Deputy Registrar from the office of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies is stated to have sent a letter dated 14.10.2003 to the petitioner bank for considering the plea of the complainant for refund of 70,282/- to him. We have no reason to differ with the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the date of cause of action is taken as 14.10.2003, the consumer complaint filed in the year 2006 was clearly barred by limitation. It is a settled legal proposition that under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a period of two years has been laid down to file a consumer complaint from the date of cause of action. The mater has been considered in a catena of judgments passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Commission in a number of cases. It has been laid down in the orders passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in " State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121] " and in " Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768] " that a consumer complaint filed beyond period of two years of the cause of action is barred by limitation. In the absence of anything to the contrary in the present case, it is held, therefore, that the consumer complaint was barred by limitation. The orders passed by the consumer fora are clearly perverse in the eyes of law, therefore.

Even on merits, the petitioner Bank has stated and the complainant also admitted in his consumer complaint that he had repaid the entire loan amount to the petitioner bank. There is no question of the complainant being defaulter in such a scenario. Regarding the plea of the complainant that he had returned certain amount in excess to the petitioner bank, it has been stated by the Bank that on receipt of letter 14.10.2003 from the Deputy Registrar, they got the matter investigated from the Land Valuation Officer who submitted a report, saying that the complainant was not covered under OTS. The Bank has also clarified that in order to get advantage of the schemes of the Government, a loanee should have been a defaulter for more than 13 months prior to 31.03.2001. This version of the Bank has nowhere been denied or controverted by the complainant in any manner.

Based on the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are set aside, being perverse in the eyes of law. The consumer complaint stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.