Kerala

StateCommission

RP/14/17

SONY AUGUSTINE, BRANCH MANAGER, M/S INDUS IND BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ AN - Opp.Party(s)

S. KRISHNAKUMAR

07 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURM.

                                      REVISION PETITION.17/14

ORDER DATED:07.01.2015

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI             : PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                 : MEMBER

1. Sony Augustine,                                        

Branch  Manager,

M/s. IndusInd Bank,

Alapuzha Branch,

CSN. Building, Oppo. SDVHS,

District Court Road,

Alappuzha-688 013.

                                                                                    : PETITIONERS

1. The Regional Manager,

M/s. IndusInd Bank,

Corporate Office- Retail No. 34,

G.N. chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai.

 

1. The Vice President,

M/s. Indus Ind bank,

Regd. Office, 2401,

Gen. Thimmayya Road,

(East Street) Cantonment,

Pune-411 001.

 

(By Adv: Sri. S. Krishnakumar)

 

                                   

Vs.

 

Sri Manoj A.N.,

EWSS No. 720,

Gandhi Nagar,                                                         : RESPONDENT

KadavanthraP.O.,

Kochi-682 020.

 

(By Adv: Sri.Pramod Kumar)

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT

 

This Revision Petition is filed by the opposite parties in CC.100/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha, under section.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated:28.02.2014 in I.A.65/2014 finding that the complaint is not barred by limitation.

2.      The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum claiming compensation from the opposite parties alleging deficiency of service.  The case of the complainant as alleged in the complaint before the Forum in brief is thus:-

The complainant purchased Autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-32-5716 registered in the name of one Devasya John from the opposite party bank, in the Auction conducted on 08.02.2008 by paying Rs.1,02,000/-.  The 1^st opposite party issued the key of the vehicle, original RC book and permit and delivered the vehicle.  The complainant renewed the Insurance in the name of the previous owner on March 14^th 2008.  When he approached the Joint RTO, Cherthala to remit the road tax of the vehicle they did not receive the same as there was an attachment order from the said vehicle from the Revenue Authority, as the legal heirs of the registered owner who had expired had raised certain claims over the vehicle.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to take steps to transfer the vehicle in his name, but they did not do anything.  Though he has filed complaint before the Magistrate Court, Police did not file the charge sheet in that case.  Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for a direction directing the opposite parties to return Rs.1,02,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages.

3.      Opposite parties 1 to 3 are the IndusInd Bank, represented by its Branch Manager, Alappuzha, Regional Manager, Chennai and Vice President, Pune.  They filed I.A.65/2013 alleging that the complaint is barred by limitation under section.24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

4.      The complainant contended that this is a continuous cause of action as the opposite parties suppressed the fact of the attachment by the Revenue Authority at the time of auction the vehicle. The Forum found that the complaint is not barred by limitation and dismissed the I.A, by the impugned order.  The opposite parties have come up in Revision challenging the said order of the Forum.

          5.      Heard the both counsels.

          6.      On hearing the counsels appearing for both parties and on going through the records we are of the view that the complaint is not barred by limitation. The opposite parties auctioned the vehicle without mentioning the attachment of the Revenue Recovery Authorities.  If the said attachment is brought to the notice of the complainant he would not have purchased the said Autorickshaw.  As correctly observed by the Forum it is a continuous cause of action.  Opposite parties are bound to see that Autorickshaw is transferred in the name of the complainant.  Therefore we are of the view that the complaint is not barred by limitation.  The finding of the forum is confirmed.

          In the result, we find no merit in this Rivision Petition and the same is hereby dismissed with a costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

 

 

VL.