Haryana

Kaithal

CC/224/2023

Renu etc. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ranvir Parashar

21 Sep 2023

ORDER

                                        C.C.No.224/2023.

Renu etc. Vs. HDFC Bank etc.

Present:     Sh. Ranvir Parashar, Adv. for the complainants.

                Complaint presented today.  It be checked and registered.  Heard on the point of maintainability of complaint.  It is argued that the bank account No.50200012226362 in the name of M/s. Ganga Trading Company, Kithana through Sole Proprietor Randeep Singh and another bank account No.50100061683068, Basic Saving Bank Deposit Account Farmers (Product Code 174) and No.05250010023000000967, in the name of aforesaid Randeep Singh is maintained with the OP No.1.  The Platinum Master Card (easy shop) account No.32320000000150 and Card No.5129670401732552, the RuPay Debit Card (easy sho0) Account No.3232001711400088 and Card No.6073180600393974, Account No.50100593324494 RuPay Debit Card was issued by the OP No.1.  A VISA CARD (International Debit Card) No.4213685406011216 has been issued in the name of aforesaid Randeep Singh.  It is further argued that the aforesaid Randeep Singh has died on 23.07.2019 in Railway Accident at Dera Vyas.  After the death of aforesaid Randeep Singh, the complainants are the only legal heirs to succeed the estate of deceased Randeep Singh and they approached the OPs and asked about the amounts lying deposited in the aforesaid accounts and the accrued benefits against the bank accounts and debit cards but the OPs lingered on the matter on one or the other pretext. 

              On perusal of complaint, it is clear that the cause of action arose on 23.07.2019 when aforesaid Randeep Singh died.  The present complaint has

                                        -2- Renu etc. Vs. HDFC Bank etc.

been filed by the complainants on 20.09.2023 i.e. after about four years.  The complainants have alleged in para No.7 of the complaint that the OPs have refused to the request of complainants on 25.08.2023 but they have not placed on the file any document from which it could be proved that the OPs have declined the claim of complainants.  The complainants have also not sent any legal notice to OPs prior to filing of present complaint.  Neither the application for condonation of delay nor any explanation regarding the same has been given by the complainants.  Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is relevant regarding the limitation which runs as under:-

“69. Limitation Period:

1. The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complaint satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period”.

Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is time-

 

                               

-3- Renu etc. Vs. HDFC Bank etc.

barred and the same is not fit for admission.  So, without going into any other controversy, we dismiss the present complaint at the stage of admission as the same is barred by limitation.  A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                                                                        President,

                                                                        DCDRC, Kaithal,

                                                                        21.09.2023.

 

                                        Member