SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.3,72,575/- to the complainant together with cost of litigation expense.
The facts of the complaint are that complainant pledged gold ornaments weighing 63.800gms on 28/09/2016 with the OP and availed a loan of Rs.1,41,750 on 28/09/2016. The said loan has been renewed on several occasions after paying the up to date interest and substantial amount as repayment against the principal amount till 2020. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP on several occasions for closing the loan account and to take back the pledged ornaments to which she is having emotion and sentimental attachment as the complainant has been wearing the same since her marriage. Complainant approached the OP to close the loan account that is below Rs.10,000/- but the OP time and again evaded from closing the loan account thereby retaining the gold ornaments with the OP indefinitely. Hence complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint before the Pariyaram Police on 27/02/2023. The police tried for a settlement to which the OP was not amenable. The complaint was returned by the police with an advice to take action through court. Thereafter, complainant sent a lawyer notice to the OP on 13/03/2023 with a request to inform the complainant as to the balance amount due, as of now, showing readiness to settle the loan account in full and final. The said notice was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the OP has not claimed the same after giving intimation in writing. The act of OP is deficiency in service a s contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act.
Due notice was issued to OP from the commission. It was returned with endorsement “unclaimed, redirected to sender.” Since OP has neither appeared or contest the case, he has been declared as ex-parte and proceeded against him as ex-parte.
At the evidence stage, complainant has filed chief affidavit and documents. She was examined as Pw1 and the documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is gold loan card issued dated 28/12/2016, Ext.A2 is information received regarding the police complaint filed by the complainant, Ext.A3 is copy of lawyer notice dated 13/03/2023, Ext.A4 is postal receipt, Ext.A5 is the undelivered cover with legal notice. Complainant was heard.
The point to be decided in the case are 1) Whether the present complaint is barred by limitation? 2) If not so, whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
Point No.1 : From Ext.A1 it is observed that the complainant has pledged her gold ornaments as stated in the complaint, to OP on 28/09/2016 and availed a loan of Rs.1,41,750/- and the said loan will have to be closed on 28/12/2016 ie after 3 months from the date of pledging. Ext.A2 to A4 shows that the legal action taken by the complainant against the OP on 27/02/2023 and 13/03/2023. Complainant alleged that she has renewed the said loan on several occasion after paying the up to date interest and substantial amount, as repayment against the principal amount till 2020. Further pleaded that thereafter she approached the OP on several occasions for closing the loan account and to take back the pledged ornaments but the OP was evaded from closing the loan amount and there by retaining the gold ornaments with him.
Though the matter is an ex-parte matter, complainant should have proved her allegations put forward against the OP. Here complainant failed to produce documents to establish that she has renewed the loan on several occasions after paying the up to date interest and substantial amount as repayment against the principal amount till 2020 and approached OP on several time for closing the loan account. Complainant has not furnished a single paper to substantiate the said facts. It is observed that complainant has lodged complaint (Ext.A2) to the Pariyaram police on 27/02/2023 and sent lawyer notice to the OP on 13/03/2023. It is also observed that the loan availed on 28/09/2016 and should have closed on 28/12/2016. As such the cause of action to file the present complaint would have arisen in December 2016 but the complainant had started lodging complaint from the year 2023. From Ext.A3, the complainant called up on the OP to close the loan account and return the pledged ornaments on 13/03/2023 within 15 days of receipt of the said notice but was not received by OP and it was returned as unclaimed.
Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 clearly provides that no complaint shall be admitted unless it is filed within two years from the data of cause of action has arisen or sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the said period. There is no doubt that the Consumer Protection Act 2019 has been enacted to provide for better protection of interest of the consumers, but at the same time it is to be noted that the Consumer Protection Act has also provision like section 69 which prescribes a period of limitation and provisions of dismissal of frivoluse and vexations complaints. It is also a settled position that oral assurance or correspondence cannot extend the period of limitation once it starts running out. The present complaint, which was filed beyond two years, and only on 03/07/2023 was clearly time barred. Hence the 1st point is found against the complainant.
Since the complaint is a time barred one, we need not to find out, the point about the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the circumstance, therefore we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is hopelessly barred by limitation. No order as to cost.
Ext.
A1- Gold loan card issued by OP
A2- Information furnished by public information officer, Pariyaram Medical college police including copy of complaint and relevant pages.
A3- Copy of lawyer notice
A4- Postal receipt
A5- Undelivered cover containing notice to the OP.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
