REGIONAL MANAGER INDUSLND BANK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed on behalf of the M/s.IndusInd Bank (hereinafter called 'the Bank'), aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 orders issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), Alappuzha and the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) respectively. The short facts leading up to the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) On receipt of notice in the complaint, appearance was entered on behalf of the Bank and thereafter, Ext.P5 interlocutory application filed, seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complaint was filed way beyond the time limit of two years prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the interlocutory application, it was submitted that Ext.P4 complaint was filed only on 13.3.2013 alleging deficiency with respect to transfer of the autorikshaw purchased by the 5 th respondent in the auction conducted on 8.2.2008. That, even though the 5th respondent had sent a legal notice on 18.2.2010, calling upon the petitioners to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle to his name, the complaint was filed beyond two years of the date on which the auction was conducted and even the date on which the legal notice was sent. The 5th respondent submitted Ext.P6 objection contending that insofar as the petitioners had failed to transfer the registration of the vehicle to his name, the cause of action continued and was very much alive, even as on the date on which the complaint was filed. It was therefore contended that the complaint was filed well within the time limit stipulated under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. By Ext.P7 order, the CDRF, Alappuzha upheld the contention of the 5th respondent and held that in view of the continuing cause of action, the complaint is not barred by limitation and was hence, maintainable. The Bank challenged Ext.P7 order by filing revision petition before the CDRC under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. By Ext.P8 order, the State Commission dismissed the revision petition upholding the finding of the CDRF, that there was continuing cause of action as far as the 5th respondent is concerned and hence the complaint was not barred by limitation.

(3.) The main challenge in this writ petition is against the finding of the CDRF as confirmed by the CDRC that, there being a continuous cause of action, the complaint was not time barred and was hence maintainable. In support of the challenge, reliance is placed on Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, as also the pleading in Ext.P4 complaint with respect to the cause of action for filing the complaint.