Karnataka

Bijapur

CC/35/2013

Smt Renuka W/o Mahesh Arakeri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Indusland Bank Near Subhashree Hotel - Opp.Party(s)

sri G.M.Badiger

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

                

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

DATE OF FILING 26^th   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:35/2013

 

DATED THIS THE  7^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

 

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -             President.  

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

COMPLAINANT   -	1	Smt. Renuka W/o Mahesh Arakeri Age: Major Occ:House hold R/o Sunnewale Plot Shakti Naar, Dargar road, Bijapur.
		(By Sri. G.M.Badiger,  Adv)

- V/S -

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -	1	The Manager,          INDUSLND BANK,      Near, Subhashree, Hotel,      Solapur road, Bijapur.           (Op-1 by Shri. S.V.Hajeri, Adv)
	2	Chandrashakar S/o Veerbhadrappa,         Tillihal, Age:Major, Occ:Business,       R/o Tidagundi Tq. Dist.Bijapur.
		(Op-2 by Shri. B.M.Patil, Adv)

O R D E R

 

Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.

 

 

 

This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directing the Op to handover the Ashok Leyland truck bearing registration No.KA-28 A-5223 to the complainant, in alternative relief in case the respondent is not in a possession to hand over the said truck, direct him to refund the entire amount whatever the deceased Parvati @ Satyawwa W/o Bhimsingh Jadhav paid to the respondent with 18% interest from the date of first payment till its realization, compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant from the respondent for mental and physical suffered by the complainant and  Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses and any other reliefs as the forum deems fit under the circumstance of the case. 

 

 

2)       The brief facts of the case are that:-

         

          It is contended that complainant is the daughter of the deceased Bhimsingh Jadhav and Satyamma @ Parvati W/o Bhimsing Jadhav. Op-1 is a finance institution dealing in vehicle finance and having its branches throughout Karnataka.

 

3)       The Mother of complainant purchased the Ashok Leyland Truck bearing its Reg. No. KA-28 A-5223 by availing the finance from Ashok Leyland Finance Limited Zonal office       at Bangalore under the loan account No.KJJA00329.  It is contended that her mother was regular in repayment of monthly installments till march 2004.  The mother and father of complainant was murdered on 21/05/2004.  It is further contended that at the time of murder of their mother and father complainant is minor and they are unaware about the estates of the deceased.  After few years the complainant enquired about the estate owned by her father and mother and she searched the vehicle i.e. Truck but she could not received any message regarding the Truck.

 

4)       It is further contended that in the month of Oct-2012 complainant made inquiry in RTO office Bijapur and after getting documents in respect of truck they shocked and surprised that said truck was transferred to one chandrashekar then complainant enquired about  Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., heard that said Ashok Leyland Finance was merged with Op Bank she noticed that said Truck was transferred on 17/07/2004 by making forged signature of deceased mother of complainant on form No.29 and 30.

5)       This act of Ops are illegal and they have made forged signature they have not follow legal steps to seize the Truck, this act of Ops itself mala trade practice and it amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, complainant filed this complaint for necessary relief’s.

 

6)       After receipt of notice from this Hon’ble Forum Ops appeared through counsel and filed detailed objections as under:-

 

          Op-1 contended in his objection that almost all the contents of complaint paras are false misleading and Op-1 is denied in toto, except those which are specifically admitted Op-1 submits that this complaint do not come under the definition of complaint as per sec. 2 (1) (c) (i) to (iv) and (d) of C.P. Act, and deserved to be dismissed.

 

7)       Further they submit that alleged dispute cannot be called as Consumer dispute as per Sec. 2(1) (c) of C.P.Act.  Hence, liable to be dismissed. Complaint is barred by limitation and said claim are illegal bad under eye of law and this complainant is also not maintainable on the ground that non-joinder of necessary party, because complainant herself said that complainant her brother are legal heirs to the deceased mother and father brother is not made party in this case.  Hence, this count also complainant deserved to be dismissed. 

 

8)       It is admitted that deceased mother of complainant purchased the Truck taken Finance of Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., the said deceased Parvati jadhav is a constant defaulter.  Hence vehicle was seized due to non-payment of the dues and which was done legally and in accordance with law and the death of said Parvati is not within the knowledge of Op-1 and rest of the contents of complaint paras are denied by the Op-1 in toto.

 

9)       It is also admitted that Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., was merged with this Op, it is also specifically denied that Op-1 transferred the said truck in the name of Op-2 by making forged signature of deceased Parvati.  Op-1 submits that his act is not illegal and doing mala trade practice with due procedure of law
Op-1 transferred the said vehicle. Hence prayed for dismissal of complaint. Op-2 not contest the case they appeared through counsel and kept mum.

 

10)     Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced 12 documents they are marked as Ex.C-1 to 12 respectively.  Ops not produced any document.  Op-1 filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and complainant Advocate filed memo stating that contents of complainant affidavit of complaint treated as written arguments of complainant.  Heard the arguments the following points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case as preliminary issue?

 

1. Whether the complainant is barred by limitation?
2. What order?

 

 

11)    Answer to the above points.

 1) In Negative.

           3) As per Final order.

 

 

REASONS

 

12)    Point No.1:-  It is admitted fact that complainant mother by name Parvati Jadhav had purchased the Ashok Leyland Truck taking Finance help from Op-1. But after the purchase of said Truck complainant’s mother huge defaulter in repayment of installments, after following all the procedure as required under law, Op-1 sold the said Truck to Op-2 and the Op-1 is not aware of death of said Parvati Jadhav on 21/05/2004.

 

13)     Complainant’s case is that complainant was minor at the death of  her mother i.e. 21/05/2004.  But we go to document i.e. Ex. C-7 it clearly evidenced that complainant was major at the time of death her mother.  Moreover, complainant not disclose on which date/year he had know about the purchase of the Truck by her deceased mother.  Complainant mother died on 21/05/2004.  After lapse of 8 years.  Complainant issued legal notice to Op calling them to furnish the details of the truck and loan account.  After receipt of this legal notice Op-1 issued reply notice by RPAD on 28/01/2013, Ex. C-12 in the said reply notice Op clearly mention that Parvati Jadhav was a constant defaulter.  Hence vehicle was seized due to non payment and sold out the said Truck, this reply notice was served upon the complainant knowing this fact, unnecessarily filed this complaint by making huge delay.  Complainant filed this complaint on dead bodies just to make unlawful gains.  Though Op-1 taken contentions in the objections regarding limitation complainant not take any steps to condone the delay, nor the complainant filed is in time.  Complainant not clearly mentioned on which date complainant got knowledge about the Truck purchased by the deceased her mother.  Moreover there is no application for condonation of delay caused in filing this complaint Sec.24-A (1) of C.P. Act clearly mention the period of limitation.  In this regard we relied upon the ruling reported in 2016 (4) CPR 447 (NC).

 

          “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21 – Appeal – Limitation – By impugned order, State Commission has declined to condone delay of 121 days caused in filling of appeals and consequently dismissed appeals as not entertainable for hearing – ‘Sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to party praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour – When a statue provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty – State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to conclusion that case for condonation of delay was not made out – No fault can be found with impugned decision – Revision petition dismissed in limine”.

 

14)     When a statute provides for a particular period of time it has to be applied with all its rigors. Mere, allegation after obtaining records from RTO office i.e. on 18/10/2012, does not hold good reason for filing this complaint.  On the date of cause of action also, right to sue does not survive.  Therefore we are of the view that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation. Moreover, complainant alleged in the complaint that Op-1 by making forged signature of deceased mother of complainant on form No.29 & 30 in respect of forged signature this Hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction to try and dispose the case.  Hence, complainant is at liberty to approach proper Court for the same. Hence, we answer to the point No:1 in negative.

 

 

 

 

15)    Point No.2:-  In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

O R D E R

 

1. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed as barred by time.  Nor order as to costs.
2. Complainant is liberty to approach the proper Court.
3. Free copy of this order shall be sent to the parties.

 

 (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, directly on Computer, edited, corrected  and  then  pronounced in the open forum on this  7^th day of February  2017).

 

 

 

 

Sri. S. H. Hosalli  President.

Smt. G. S. Kalyani     Lady Member.