M.PALANIAPPAN Vs. MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, aggrieved by an order of the forum rejecting the complaint that the nature of the allegations made in the complaint does not constitute deficiency in service and that it is also barred by limitation.

(2.) The brief facts that has given rise to this comlaint are that the revision petitioner herein has preferred complaint in SR.No.332 of 2018 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, in which he has alleged that:

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the first respondent was engaged in a banking business and if a customer, who obtains service, faced with any deficiency in such a service, he can invoke the protection of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. He has referred to the authorities reported in CITIBANK N.A Vs. Geekay Agropack Private Limited and another , 2008 15 SCC 102, Vijaya Bank Vs. Gurnam Singh , 2010 13 SCC 775and State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Superintending Engineer Vs. E.R.Sundaram , 2009 7 MadLJ 845. It is further further proceeded to argue that there cannot be any limitation since the revision petitioner has been prosecuting the proceeding bonafidely before this Court in W.P(MD).No.8888 of 2013 followed by W.A(MD)No. 348 of 2018.