RADHA RANI Vs. BANK OF BARODA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment by virtue of which the appellant's complaint for damages, besides recovery of Rs. 1,280 was dismissed as time barred. According to the complainant, she deposited Cheque No. R -001650 dated 17.1.1994 for a sum of Rs. 1,280 with the Bank of Baroda, Shahjahanpur. The said bank sent the cheque in question for clearance to Punjab National Bank, Delhi. However, neither the cheque was received back after clearance nor there was any communication between the Bank of Baroda or the Punjab National Bank for three years and six months. The complainant woke from her sleep three years and six months after when she sent a notice on 14.8.1997 to the Bank of Baroda claiming back her money of the cheque. The said notice was not replied nor any communication made.

(2.) OBVIOUSLY the complaint of the complainant was barred by the provisions of Section -24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the instant case the complainant regularly visited the Bank of Baroda every month and had enquired about the clearance of her cheque but, as pleaded by her, the bank authorities always conveyed to her that it had not come back. This exercise went on for a few months and then there was a long silence between the complainant and the Bank of Baroda. As said above, the complainant served the respondent/bank with a notice of August 14, 1997 i.e. about three years and six months after the cheque had been deposited.

(3.) IT is significant to note that the law of limitation has a sanctity behind it and it is to the effect that all issues particularly, the petty one must come to an end after a reasonable period. There is another aspect of the matter and it is that the law does not help those who slumber upon their rights for long. A man of ordinary prudence is expected to be vigilant of his rights and must move to stake his or her claim within a reasonable period. If one forgets to assert his rights within a reasonable period particularly when it is stipulated he loses his claim after the period comes to an end. Similar seems to be the fate of the case in hand where the complainant did not rise to any occasion to claim money of her cheque for nearly three years and six months. It appears that her right to recover money has gone into oblivion - perhaps on account of the lapse of time. As said above the law would come to the rescue of only those who are vigilant, prudent and alert in staking claim for their rights. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the cause of action would be deemed to have arisen when it was finally communicated to the complainant that the cheque had not been cleared. We are afraid the contention has no merit. As an intelligent person the complainant was expected to have waited for a few months for clearance of her cheque but may be on account of the forgetfulness she lost track of her right and the money both. The crux is that by lapse of time the claim became time barred and so was barred by two years limitation the complaint filed by the complainant.