Karnataka

StateCommission

A/118/2023

Mr.P.V Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shivaraj N Arali

15 Apr 2023

ORDER

15.04.2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION

BY  SRI .RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

The Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal against the dismissal order dt.04.11.2022 passed in CC.No.301/2022 made by District Commission as barred by time and also dismissed the application filed u/s 40 of the Consumer Protection and submits that the complainant  had filed  a complaint before District Commission alleging a deficiency in service towards illegal withdrawn from the savings account of the complainant for an amount of Rs.5,380/- from OP Bank on 11.10.2019 and sought for a claim to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs.75,00,000/- towards  mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards ligations expenses.

2.     After hearing on admission, the District Commission dismissed the compliant as barred by time.  In fact, the complainant had issued the legal notice on 17.01.2022 and called upon OP to pay the above said amount along with compensation as stated above. There afterwards, they have filed the complaint on 19.10.2022 against the alleged illegal withdrawal of the amount of Rs.5,330/- on 11.10.2019.  Hence, there is a continuous cause of action and as on the date of issue of legal notice, there is a limitation to file the compliant inspite of that the District Commission dismissed the complaint, hence, prays to set aside order passed by the District Commission. Further the complainant preferred a Review Application u/s 40 of the Consumer Protection Act to review the dismissal order made by the District Commission dated 04.11.2022, but, the said application also rejected.  Hence, the complainant preferred this appeal against both the orders and prayed for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and to direct the District Commission to admit the compliant in the interest of justice and equity.

3.     On Perusal of the order dated 4.11.2022 and order on application made by complainant u/s 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, we noticed that the complainant basically filed a complaint before this Commission alleging the deficiency in service for illegal withdrawal of the amount of Rs.5,330/-. There afterwards the said complaint was returned to the complainant with liberty to file the same before District Commission and also made an observation that the limitation for filing the complaint to be considered within time. Accordingly the compliant was returned to the complainant to file the same before District Commission on 02.08.2022.

4.     On 04.11.2022, the District Commission after hearing the complainant dismissed the compliant as barred by time.   Since, the cause of action to file the compliant arose on 11.10.2019 and if any allegations made against the OP, the said compliant has to be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action i.e., from 11.10.2019.  The District Commission also observed that the complainant had not filed any application under the required provisions to condone the delay. In the absence of such application, the District Commission hold that the complainant filed by compliant is barred by time.

5.     On perusal of the entire order, we noticed there is no any discrepancy or irregularity in order passed by the District Commission. The complainant ought to file a complaint before District Commission within 2 years from the cause of action arose.  Mere issuance of legal notice subsequent to the lapse of 2 years does not create a cause of action to file a complaint.  We also noticed that the complainant also not filed any application to condone the delay with supporting affidavit.  The complainant does not explain proper reason for not filing a complaint well within time.   We found there is no any valid reason in the appeal to reconsider the order passed by the District Commission.  Hence, the appeal fails.

        6.     Further, the complainant moved an application u/s 40 of the Consumer Protection during the order dated 04.11.2022 the said application also dismissed as there is no any error apparent on the face of the order.  We consider the rejection of review application also is in accordance with law.  We found there is no any error found in the order dated 04.11.2022.  Therefore, the District Commission has rightly rejected the application under Sec 40 of the CP Act filed by complainant.  As such we found there is no any valid reason urged in the appeal. Hence, the following;

ORDER

        The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

MEMBER                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

SP*