MAHARASHTRA TRADING AGENCY Vs. RUCHA KEDAR KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short judgment will serve the purpose as the facts are simple and we find the patent error on the part of the District Forum, Sangli in allowing the claim. The few facts are that the respondent/complainant deposited under the Demand Draft, Rs. 21,000/- with the appellant Maharashtra Trading Agency. The said amount was deposited on 23-5-89 and the said deposit was to carry 20% interest. The period expired on 23-5-95. The complainant, therefore, moved for the refund along with interest. But the same was declined. The District Forum did not agree with the question of jurisdiction and limitation raised on behalf of the appellant. However, we find that on complainants own showing, the period expired on 23-5-95 and the complaint has been filed on 3-10-97. Even under the existing limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint should have been filed on 23-5-97 latest. The gap of 5 months have not been explained by the complainant for the condonation of delay. Apart from that, even the correspondence shows that the amount was deposited at Mumbai by the complainant. The appellant has no branch at Sangli. We are, therefore, of the view that even the District Forum, Sangli has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. All said and done, we feel that the claim is barred by limitation and the District Forum, therefore, should have dismissed the claim. We, therefore, feel that the order of the District Forum should have been set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The original complaint is dismissed. The amount of deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant. In these terms, we dispose of the appeal. Appeal allowed.