STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 2492 OF 2015
(Against the order dated 03-11-2015 in Misc. Case No.
87/2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar)
01.Kastoor Chand Jain
S/o Sri Kapoor Chand Jain
R/o House No.170
Mohalla Patel Nagar, Nai Mandi
Muzaffarnagar
02.Praveen Kumar Jain
S/o Sri Kastoor Chand Jain
R/o House No.170
Mohalla Patel Nagar, Nai Mandi
Muzaffarnagar State Bank of India
Head Officer, Mumbai.
...Appellants
V/s
Canara Bank
Through Branch Manager
Main Market, Qasba Kairana
Shamli, U.P.
...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VIJAY VERMA, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None appeared
Dated : 24-10-2016
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
By filing this appeal the complainant Kastoor Chand Jain has assailed the order dated 03-11-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarnagar in Misc. Case No.87/2015 Kastoor Chand Jain and another V/s Canara Bank whereby the District Consumer Forum has refused to entertain the complaint filed by complainants/appellants Kastoor Chand Jain and another on the ground of limitation provided in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants
:2:
appeared. Notice has been sent to respondent through registered post on 22-08-2016 and same has not been returned unserved, as such service of notice has been held sufficient on respondent.
We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused impugned order as well as records of the case.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellants that the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is against law. The complaint filed by appellants before the District Consumer Forum is within time prescribed by Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellants.
In complaint presented by the appellant before the District Consumer Forum the complainant/appellant has sought following prayers.
- परिवादी नं0 1 को विपक्षी से असल बैनामा संख्या 3735 दिनांक 09.07.1971, परिवादी नं0 1 के अन्य आवश्यक कागजात जो कि मोरगेज के समय परिवादी नं0 1 ने विपक्षी को दिये थे वापिस दिलाये जावे।
ब- यह कि परिवादी को विपक्षी से उपरोक्तानुसार मुआवेजे के तौर पर मुबलिग 1000000/- रूपये का भुगतान कराया जावे।
स- यह कि अन्य कोई अनुतोष जो राय अदालत में परिवादीगण केहक में और विपक्षी के खिलाफ हो विपक्षी से परिवादीगण कोदिलाया जावे। आपकी अति कृपा होगी।
Appellants/complainants have filed complaint for return of sale deed and papers deposited in respondent bank in the course of mortgage executed for cash credit limit facility. Cause of complaint has arisen when the respondent bank has refused to return sale deed and other papers.
In view of averments made in complaint, the complaint cannot be said to be time barred. At this juncture, the jurisdiction as well as
:3:
limitation shall be assessed on the basis of averments made in complaint only.
In view of above we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is not in accordance with law and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
For the reasons mentioned above the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is set aside with direction to District Consumer Forum to entertain complaint of appellant/ complainant and to proceed further in accordance with law subject to condition that opposite party of the complaint shall be at liberty to raise plea of limitation before the District Consumer Forum. If such plea is raised before the District Consumer Forum by the opposite party of the complaint, the District Consumer Forum shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
( JUSTICE A. H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
( VIJAY VERMA )
MEMBER
Pnt.
