Present: Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President.
Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member.
C.C.No.90/2009
Parbati Sahoo,
At:Gothamuha,PO:Kaitha,
Via:Chhatia,Dist:Cuttack,
At present C/O:Hadibandhu Sahoo,
Choudwar Bada Bazar,
Near Palamandap,Ward No.4,
P.O/P.S:Choudwar,
Dist:Cuttack. … Complainant.
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager,
M/s. The Peerless General Finance
& Investment Co. Ltd.,
Link Road,Cuttack.
2. The Officer-in-Charge,
Central Maturity Cell(Kolkata),
M/s. The Peerless General Finance
& Investment Co. Ltd.,Chouringee Square,
2nd Floor,Kolkata. … Opposite Parties.
JUDGMENT DT.11.11.09
Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member
Alleging deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Parties. in not remitting the matured value in respect of certificate No.A 1435839, this case has been filed claiming payment of maturity money of Rs.4820/- along with litigation cost and compensation etc. totaling Rs.29,820/- on the following grounds.
1. The complainant is a policy holder under Opposite Party No.1 and bears the above policy holder certificate which was matured in the year 2004-05. For receipt of the matured value, he submitted necessary documents such as bank account pass book, photo identity card etc. and waited for receipt of the matured value. The documents were received by Opposite Party No.1 who, in turn, sent them to Opposite Party No.2 in 2005(Annex-1 series).
2. Due to non-payment and delay in payment of maturity value in spite of submission of required documents, the complainant served a notice through his counsel and after receipt of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 replied that payment vide cheque no.1216777 for Rs.4820/- drawn from ICICI Bank was issued on 15.7.05 to the complainant. A copy of the legal notice and reply of the Opposite Party No.1 are annexed at Annex-2 series. Since the payment has not been made to him till now, this case has been filed claiming as above.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 1 & 2 in his written version as well as in course of hearing challenges the complaint petition on the following grounds.
(i) The complaint is barred by limitation as per Sec-24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act since the cause of action is in 2005 the case has been filed during 2009. Further he states that the Opposite Parties. have released the maturity value of certificate No.A 1435839 by Account Payee Cheque No.216777 dt.15.7.05 for Rs.4820/- drawn on ICICI Bank in favour of the complainant and the same has duly been encashed on 4.8.05 by her. Hence the question of further payment does not arise. Further he states that the account payee cheque bearing no.216777 dt.19.3.05 for Rs.4820/- was issued by Opposite Party No.2 in favour of the complainant mentioning banks name as CCC Cooperative Bank Ltd. but after getting the said account payee cheque the complainant instead of presenting the cheque in question through CCC Cooperative Bank, presented the same before Kalinga Gramya Bank,Chatia and got the cheque encashed on 28.5.09. In this connection he relies on correspondences placed. at Annexes-A,B,C,D & E respectively. Since the complainant has received the cheque herself and encashed through Kalinga Gramya Bank,Chatia, this case has been filed erroneously suppressing material facts vexatiously and on the above grounds he prays to dismiss the case against him.
4. From above, the following issues need determination for deciding the case.
(a) Whether the case is maintainable or not?
It is admitted by the complainant that the certificate was matured in the year 2005 and he submitted required papers for receipt of matured value during that year. Only in 2008 he filed a legal notice alleging non-receipt of matured value. Why no action was taken by him during a span of long 3 years i.e. from 2005 has not bee explained? Since the cause of action arises with submission of required documents during 2005, we find the case is barred by limitation and hence not maintainable as enshrined U/S-24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.
(b) Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their services or not.
Even if the case is not maintainable, we find the matured value has been received by the complainant through an account payee cheque which has been encashed through Kalinga Gramya Bank and in this connection evidence was produced before us are duly relied upon. The learned counsel for the complainant can not substantiate his allegations regarding non-payment and we find the allegations are frivolous/vexatious with suppression of material facts. Considering the nature of complainant we direct the complainant to pay a cost of Rs.2000/-(two thousand) only as enshrined U/S.26 of Consumer Protection Act to the Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this order.
Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11th day of November,2009 under the seal and signature of this Forum.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Submit Complaint..
