BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR


Appeal No. 895/2008


I.D.B.I. & Anr. vs Suresh Chand Rawat


27.07.2009


Before:

Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member

Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member


Present:

Mr. K.S. Sharma, counsel for the Appellants

Mr. Y.P. Sharma, counsel for the Respondent


Heard.


This appeal arises out of the order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur whereby the Appellants have been directed to pay to the Complainant interest on Rs. 14,300/- @ 9% per annum from 27.3.2002 to 26.10.2006 besides Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.


We have given due consideration to the arguments raised before us.


The Complainant had taken two bonds of Rs. 5,000/- each on 27.3.1999, the maturity date of which was 27.3.2002. On the basis of a letter written by the Complainant on 5.10.2006 a sum of Rs. 14,300/- was sent to the Complainant after deducting 'tax at source' which was Rs. 439/-. The contention of the Complainant is that the Non-applicants paid no interest from 27.3.2002 to 26.10.2006 which

2


amounts to deficiency in service and therefore he filed the complaint for award of the amount of interest + the amount for mental agony and physical discomfort etc. The Non-applicants filed the reply and after hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed an award as indicated above. From the facts available on record, it is clear that the maturity date of the bonds was 27.3.2002. As per Circular dated 21.1.2002, the Complainant should have filed the requisite papers before the competent authority a month before the date of maturity. It was made specifically clear that after 26.3.2002 no interest was payable. In our view, it was made clear by the Non-applicants that a request was to be made by the Complainant with submission of certain documents for release of money but it appears that no efforts were made by him except that he wrote a letter to the Non-applicants on 5.10.2006. Even otherwise the cause of action arose on 27.3.2002 but no efforts were made by the Complainant till 5.10.2006, therefore, the complaint also appears to be time-barred. The complaint has been filed four years after the date when the cause of action arose.


For the reasons stated above, in any case, no relief should have been granted to the Complainant and therefore while allowing this appeal, we set aside the impugned order of the learned District Forum and consequently dismiss the complaint.



Member Presiding Member



Hira Lal