THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, WAYANAD.

I.A. No. 182/2024 IN C.C. No.40/2024

Dated this the 14^thday of August 2024.

PRESENT:-    Smt.  Bindu. R,  BSc, LL.B.                                                :            President

             Smt. Beena. M,  BAL, LL.B.                                         :           President

              Sri.  A.S. Subhagan,  M.Com, LL.B.                                 :           Member.

Nirmal Domanic, Age 35, S/o.Domanic Savio,    :

Nacheriyil House,  Chettappalam (P.O),               :

Pulpally- 673 579.                                                 :          Petitioner/

Now residing at Kenichira,                                   :         Complainant.

Athirattukunnu (P.O), S.N. Kavala,                      :

Irulam Village- 673 596.                                        :

1.  President,  Vyapari Vyavasayi Co-operative                    :

Bank, Pulpally,  Pulpally (P.O),                             :

 Sulthan Bathery Taluk.                                          :

                                                                                :       Respondents/

2.             Vyapari Vyavasayi Co-operative Bank,                   :       Opposite Parties

Pulpally, Pulpally (P.O), Sulthan Bathery Taluk     :

Represented by  its Secretary.                                 :

                                                                                 :

3.            Vyapari Vyavasayi Co-operative Bank,                    :

Sulthan Bathery  Branch,     Sulthan Bathery          :

(P.O), Sulthan Bathery Taluk, Represented by         :

Its  Branch Manager.                                               :

Petitioner by:-  Adv. Vinita. V.V  and Adv. Anita Joseph.

Respondents by:-  Adv. P.K. Dinesh Kumar.

ORDER.

By  Smt. Bindu. R,  President

            This IA is filed by the Complainant to condone the delay of 2282 days in filing the  Consumer complaint.

            2. The complaint is filed praying for issuing direction to the Opposite Parties to return the gold ornaments  pledged by the Complainant or to pay Rs.6,00,000/- being the value of the same and for  other reliefs.

            3. The allegations in the petition are that  the Complainant pledged almost  12 sovereign  of gold  ornaments on different occasions as 8 gold loan numbers.  The said loans were renewed by the Complainant from time to time.  Meanwhile the Complainant received a demand notice from the 3^rd  Opposite Party stating that GL No.I-5470, GL No.S-5466  and GL No.S-5468 are to be closed and thereby  the Complainant entrusted the receipts to the office of 3^rd  Opposite Party and signed the relevant records.  On 30.10.2016 the Complainant when approached the 1^st  Opposite Party it is informed that the gold  ornaments are not available  with them.  According to the Complainant the loan cards are also not returned by the Opposite Party.  When enquired about the other gold  loans,  the Opposite Party informed that  no other loans are pending  and the same  is closed by somebody.  Hence  the Complainant filed a  complaint on 31.10.2016 to the Opposite Party and the Complainant was informed that the gold  is not available with the  Opposite Party.

            4. The Complainant/Petitioner stated that even thereafter the Complainant was in frequent touch with the Opposite Parties and  it is  stated by the Complainant that,  lastly on 08.12.2023 when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for return  of gold ornaments they insulted the  Complainant and hence the complaint is filed with a delay of 2282 days.

            5. The Opposite Parties filed objection to the said  IA stating that the petition  and the Complaint are  not maintainable.  According to the Opposite Parties  the Petitioner is a member of the Co-operative  Society and the law is that the dispute  between a member and the society shall be done by arbitration proceedings  under the Co-operative  Laws and Rules.  In the present  petition no sufficient cause  and convincing  reasons are stated for the delay.   The  reasons for the delay  stated in the affidavit in  support of the petition are insufficient and un acceptable in law and suppressing  material elements in the matter.  There  is no valid and sustainable reasons to explain the long delay in filing the complaint.  According to the Opposite Parties the petitioner had enough  opportunities to understand the facts before  2017 itself.  It is  stated by the Opposite Party in their  counter that the petitioner is directly and materially involved in a scam   where in the  Petitioner’s  paternal uncle’s wife is involved.  The Petitioner was also examined  as a witness in the proceedings.  More over it is stated by the Opposite Party that disciplinary action were initiated at the instance of a petition filed by the Petitioner himself and the present complaint and the petition is without revealing  the said facts and role at different stages of the proceedings taken  by the society.  No valid and sufficient grounds are stated to condone the delay and  hence  there is no bonafides in the petition.  Hence  prayed for dismissal of the IA.

            6. Heard  both sides and perused the records.  The averments in the petition with respect to cause of action in the petition  is  that “XpSÀ¶v Bb-Xnsâ kX-ym-hØ ]cn-tim-[n¨v kzÀWw XncnsI In«p-¶-Xn\v th­ kX-zc     \S-]-Sn-IÄ ssIs¡m-f-f-W-sa-¶pw, \oXn e`n-¡-W-sa-¶pw, IjvS-\-jvS-§Ä¡v CS-bmbn F¶pw ImWn¨v Rm³ 31.10.2016 XobXn H¶mw  FXnÀI-£n-bmb ]p¸Ån hym-]mcn hy-h-kmbn tIm¸-td-äohv _m¦v {]kn-Uân\pw, t_mÀUv
Hm^v Ub-d-IvSÀamÀ¡pw, ]cmXn \ÂIn-b-Xpw, BbXv At\-z-jn-¨-Xn kzÀWm -`-c-§Ä e`-y-aà F¶v Adn-bn-¨-Xp-am-Wv.  \jvS-s¸« kzÀWm-`-c-W-§Ä hos­-Sp-¡p-hm-\pw, Rm³ ]e {]mh-iyw FXnÀI-£n-IÄ Øm]-\-¯n ]cmXn \evIn -b-Xpw, IqSmsX ]e-t¸m-gmbn  t\cn«pw t^m¬ apJm-´n-chpw FXnÀI-£n-IÄ Øm]-\-¯n  _Ô-s¸-«-Xpw, F¶m Sn ka-b-§-fn-seÃmw At\-z-jWw     \S-¶p-sIm-­n-cn-¡p-I-bmWv F¶pw,  e`n-¨m DSs\ XncnsI \ÂImw F¶v ]dªv Ah-[n-IÄ \o«n-s¡m­p t]mIp-I-bm-Wp-­m-b-Xv.  F¶m  kzÀWm-`-c-W-§Ä XncnsI Xcp-¶-Xn hogvN sNbvXv A\n-Ýn-X-ambn \o«n-s¡m­p t]mb-Xn Rm³ Ah-km-\-ambn FXnÀI-£n-IÄ Øm]-\-¯n 8/12/2023 Xob-Xn¡v c­mw FXnÀI-£n-tbmSv kzÀWm-`-c-W-§Ä XncnsI \ÂIm³ Bh-i-y-s¸-«-XnÂ,  tIkn DÄs¸« apX-ep-IÄ Bb-Xn-\m BbXv Xcm³ \nÀhm-l-anà F¶v Adn-bn-¨Xpw kzÀWm-`-c-W-§Ä thW-sa-¦n tIkv  sImSp¯v hm§nt¨m F¶ [n¡m-c-]-c-amb adp-]-Sn-bmWv \ÂIn-b-Xv”.

       7. According to the Petitioner the complaint to 1^st Opposite Party was filed on 31.10.2016 and the Complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence before the  Commission  to show the continuous cause of action till the filing  of the complaint before the Commission in 2024,  The letter dated 08.12.2023 do not have any merit in considering the cause of action in the instant complaint since acknowledgment of receipt of a letter  and the endorsement there on can’t be taken into account  as the  date of cause of action, since it can be done at any time.  More over the Complainant could not  furnish a valid  explanation regarding  the inordinate delay in filing the present complaint.

          It is the settled principle that each day’s delay shall be explained and there must be sufficient cause for  the delay.  In this case  even though the Complainant had stated that he was making follow up action with the Opposite Parties no documentary or other evidences are produced by the Complainant to substantiate and establish the claim.  In these circumstances the Commission finds that the Complainant had not satisfied the Commission  that he had  sufficient cause for  not filing the complaint within the stipulated period.  The Commission has not find any satisfactory ground to condone the delay  of 2282 days and hence IA 182/2024 is dismissed & CC Closed.

            Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 14^th day of August 2024.

PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

MEMBER   :  Sd/-

MEMBER    :  Sd/-