Date of Filing:09.12.2019

Date of Disposal:15.06.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainants files a complaint with this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 with a direction to OP to return the Original sale deed dt.30.03.2005  and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

This is the case of the complainant thatthe complainant availed housing loan from the OP bank by depositing the documents of the property on 23.02.2005 and the complainant purchased the said property through registered sale deed dt.30.03.2005. Further the complainant cleared entire loan amount along with interest and on 04.02.2012 the OP has issued endorsement stating that the complainant has cleared entire loan amount. The complainant further submits that on 02.02.2012 the OP bank has sent original documents to the complainant, but for the surprise the OP bank has not returned original sale deed dt.30.03.2005. The complainant approached the OP bank and made an enquiry and requested OP-1 to return the original sale deed, but OP bank officialstates thatOP bank had not received the sale deed at the time of registration. Again on 23.07.2019 the complainant requested the OP-1 to return the original sale deed, but instead of returning the sale deed they assured to return the sale deed and failed to keep their promise words as assured by them. The complainant without any option on 17.09.2019 issued legal notice calling upon the OP to hand over the sale deed dt.30.03.2005, but the OP without complying to the notice they given untenable reply on 26.09.2019. Aggrieved by the act of the OP, the complainant was forced to file the present complaint seeking relief for deficiency of service.

3. Notice to OP-duly served, represented by counsel and filed written version along with chief examination affidavit and relevant documents in support of their contention.

4.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant in support of his contention.

5.  Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for order.

6.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complaint is barred by Limitation?
2. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and there by prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
3. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1                : Affirmative

Point No.2             : As per the finding given in point no.1, point no.2 does not arise for consideration.

Point No.3                :As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:-   OP has raised the point of limitation in the complaint initiated by the complainant. When the point of limitation on point of law which is raised by the OP, the commission has preferred to  answer the point of limitation as preliminary issue and by giving findings to the point of limitation the commission has expressed opinion as follows.

9. From the perusal of the facts and contentions of the OP, it is crystal clear that  there is a transaction between the complainant and the OP bank. After availing housing loan from the OP Bank on 23.02.2005 complainant has cleared the loan along with interest on 04.01.2012. It is also apparent from the facts of the case that the complainant has cleared entire loan amount and upon receipt of the loan amount, the OP bank has issued NOC letter to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant alleged that one of the sale deed document which was deposited with OP bank is not returned at the time of closure of the loan. Upon which the present complaint  is initiated and sought for the relief of compensation. Here, from the events which took between the parties, it is admitted to be  cleared the housing loan which was availed by the complainant was cleared on 04.01.2012. Upon receipt of due loan amount, the OP bank has also issued NOC. If at all if the OP has failed to return original sale deed at that point of time during the year 2012 nothing has prevented the complainant to maintain the present complaint as against the OP well within 02 years from the date of actual accrual of cause of action. The calculation of cause of action to initiate the complaint as against the OP bank starts from 04.02.2012 when the entire loan  was cleared by the complainant and when the NOC issued by the OP bank.

As per section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

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 of 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 complainant satisfied the District Commission, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

   The act clearly stipulates that any complaint if it is filed well within two years from the date of actual accrual of cause of action is maintainable and if it is filed after the lapse of limitation period of 02 years as stipulated by the Act, the complainant to initiate the complaint will have to explain the delay in filing  the belated complaint. The reasons should be the reasonable and acceptable in order to condone the delay. The complainant no where in the entire complaint has not at all whispered anything on the delay. When such being the case, the complaint deserves to be dismissed as there is inordinate delay in preferring present complaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Appellate Authority in its judgments have held that each day delay needs to be explained with a reasonable and acceptable cause. In the absence of any of the reasonable cause, the commission is not in a position to consider the complaint on the merits.

10.  In the light of the above discussion, the complaint deserves to be dismissed as it is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the Point No.1 we answer in Affirmative.

11. Point No.2:  As per the finding given in point no.1, Point no.2 does not arise for consideration.

12. POINT NO.3:- In the result, we passed the following:

                             ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. No costs.

2. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 15^th  June 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                 (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Smt.D.N.Manasi-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Sri Naveen Prasad.T.A.- Who being the Legal Manager of OP.

Documents produced by the OP:

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*