Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member These are the bunch of complaints filed by family members who are individual proprietor of various concerns. One complaint is filed by Shital Adinath Ketkale, Prop. of M/s.Sadhram Texcom. Second complaint is filed by Mr.Adinath Pirappa Ketkale, Prop. of M/s.Abhinandan Texcom. Third complaint is filed by Champavati Adinath Ketkale, Prop. of Jayant Texcom. Fourth complaint is filed by Ms.Anita Adinath Ketkale, Prop. of M/s.Sanmati Texcom. Fifth complaint is filed by Mr.Ajit Adinath Ketkale, Prop.of M/s.Anant Texcom and sixth complaint is filed by Mr.Adinath Pirappa Ketkale. They had filed consumer complaints against Ichalkarnaji Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dist. Kolhapur. In all the complaints, complainants pleaded that they are small scale industries and for constructing factory building they had taken average loan of `65 Lakhs from the opponent/Bank. However, opponent/Bank disbursed `61,46,700/- and did not disburse the amount of `3,53,300/-. They pursued the matter with the opponent/Bank, but opponent/Bank avoided to release the remaining loan amount as sanctioned and therefore, they filed consumer complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent/Bank and claimed `23,59,073/- towards compensation on various counts mentioned in Para 19 of the complaints. They also claimed amount of `3 Lakhs towards mental agony and interest @ 18% p.a. According to the complainants, opponent/Bank obtained Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for unpaid installments from December 2008 and thereafter, they had filed consumer complaints within two years. So, these complaints were well within limitation. Then they also filed separate applications for condonation of delay claiming that there was delay of 22 months and 21 days in filing these complaints and it may kindly be condoned. 2. In Para 5 of the application for condonation of delay, the complainants mentioned that applicants/complainants were taken by surprise by receiving a letter dated 10/08/2006 informing about cancellation of bank loan to the applicants/complainants under the guise that project of the applicants/complainants was fully operative and hence, balance loan was cancelled. This was the letter issued by Managing Director on 10/08/2006 and thereafter, many reminders were sent, but Bank did not release remaining amount of more than `3 Lakhs. This was the grievance complainants had but when the Bank opted for issuing notice under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 dated 01/06/2009 they decided to file consumer complaints and therefore, they pleaded that there was delay of 22 months and 21 days in filing these consumer complaints. 3. We are finding that the consumer complaints as filed are absolutely barred by limitation and limitation will have to be computed from 10/08/2006 by which date the Managing Director informed the complainants that they were cancelling the balance loan amount sanctioned to the complainants as their project was fully operative. It is this date on which cause of action accrued to the complainants and complaints came to be filed on 22/10/2010 i.e. after about more than four years and mere fact that in the year 2009 the Bank issued notice under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act would not save the limitation because deficiency being alleged by the complainants with reference to cancellation of balance loan and refusal of Bank to disburse the sanctioned loan by their letter dated 10/08/2006. So, in any view of the matter, delay is not properly calculated or computed with reference to the cause of action first accrued on 10/08/2006. Moreover, in the original complaints, it is the contention of the complainants that complaints are filed well within limitation, but by way of safer side they had filed condonation of delay applications. In condonation of delay applications, the complainants mentioned that there was delay of 22 months and 21 days. We do not know how it is calculated, but even that delay of 22 months and 21 days is not at all properly explained by giving cogent, satisfactory or sufficient reasons to prompt us to condone the delay. For all these reasons, we are of the view that delay cannot be condoned as it is not properly asked with reference to cause of action and with reference to cause of action the complaints as filed with condonation of delay of 22 months and 21 days is not proper because delay is more than four years. In any view of the matter, we are of the view that condonation of delay applications will have to be rejected as delay admittedly of 22 months and 21 days is not at all explained by giving cogent and sufficient cause in view of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, we reject the applications for condonation of delay filed by the complainants. As such we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Applications for condonation of delay Nos.712 to 717/2010 stand rejected. 2. Consequently, complaints Nos.214 to 219/2010 do not survive for consideration. 3. In the given circumstances, no order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 16th August 2012. |
