V.P.DAVIS vs KARUNA TRUST

COMPLAINANT in O.P. 1279/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur is the appellant. COMPLAINANT alleged before the District Forum that he used to make deposits Rs. 500/- per day with the first opposite party trust and as on 29.8.1990 the total amount so deposited was Rs. 1,97,000/-; though he made demand for payment of the said amount with interest on 2.11.1998, the opposite parties did not comply with the demand. He alleged deficiency of service and wanted relief. Even before the opposite parties entered appearance on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation the complaint was dismissed. It is the said order that is challenged in the appeal.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant urged that in view of the fact that the demand for payment of the amount in deposit was only on 2.11.1998 and the complaint having been filed on 18.12.1998, the view taken by the District Forum, the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be supported, as according to the learned Counsel the cause of action could accrue only from the date of demand. LEARNED Counsel for the second respondent sought to support the dismissal maintaining that the limitation would start to run from the date of the last deposit, that is from 29.8.1990. It is also urged by the learned Counsel at any rate the appellant who is the second opposite party being is not a member of the partnership could not be liable for the claim. Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 enjoins that the FORA created under the Act shall not admit a complaint unless the same is filed within two years of the date of which the cause of action arose. In computing the period of limitation, therefore, the accrual of the cause of action becomes important. In deciding the said aspect, the character of the deposit also becomes important. The allegation in the complaint is, the deposit has to carry interest at 14%. According to the complainant no maturity date is mentioned. In such circumstances the cause of action could accrue only from the date of demand. Reliance was made by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the decision of M/s. Golden Finance, Thrissur & Ors. v. Mrs. Susy Zacharia in 1996 (1) CPR 114, to maintain that the cause of action would arise only from the date of demand. In the said decision reference is made under Article 22 of the Limitation Act to see as to the accrual of the cause of action in the case of deposits made in a financial institution and it is mentioned that the limitation would start in the case of deposits only from the date of demand. This would show that the cause of action in the case of deposits made in a financial institution could accrue only from the date of demand. Here the complainant made demand on 2.11.1998 and the complaint having been filed on 18.12.1998 since is within two years of the demand is within time. The view taken by the District Forum that the complaint is barred by limitation thus is not sustainable. The order of the District Forum has to be set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Forum, which shall restore the complaint to file giving opportunity to the opposite parties to file version, if they have not filed version yet, and then proceed to dispose of the matter in at accordance with law. In this appeal there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.