RADHA AGRO PACKS LTD Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 5.12.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short 'State Commission'), appellant/complainant has filed this First Appeal against respondents / opposite parties. Brief facts are that appellant raised loan on 6.12.2006 for Rs. 34,62,750 from respondent No. 1. Appellant handed over two blank cheques to respondent No. 1, stating the same to be by way of security towards repayment of outstanding loan, with an understanding that cheques would not be presented for encashment without consent and notice to the appellant. It is further alleged that despite appellant making regular payment towards repayment, respondent No. 1 started harassing it. Further, respondent No. 1 in an arbitrary manner directed appellant to remove the stocks from warehouse within seven days from the issuance of their letter dated 29.8.2007. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1, recalled their loan amount vide their notice, dated 8.12.2007. Respondent No. 1 did not even permit the officials of appellant to enter the cold storage for operating the freezing unit and this caused loss to the vegetable stored in the cold storage, which were destroyed. Appellant even requested for settlement of account subject to respondent releasing the entire stocks of appellant and further agreeing to pay 10% of the amount on acceptance of OTS and balance 90% with interest in six equal instalments. Vegetable stored started giving foul smell, because of being destroyed. Matter was taken up with the administration. In the meanwhile, respondent presented the cheques, which were dishonoured and consequently respondent also filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The administration constituted a committee, which opened the locks of cold storage for the purpose of removing the destroyed vegetables. Material in the shape of green peas weighing 1,45,500 kg., amounting to Rs. 43,65,000 was damaged. Alleging it as deficiency in service, complaint was filed. Cause of action was stated to have arisen on 29.8.2008 when the committee appointed by Deputy Commissioner headed by SDM, opened the cold storage.

(2.) Appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as 'Act') on 28.11.2011. Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 454 days was also filed. Delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that, papers were given to Shri Pardeep Gupta and Ashok Gupta,' Advocates who had agreed to file the complaint within time. A letter was also sent by the appellant through UPC to know the position of the case but they did not file the complaint.

(3.) State Commission, vide its impugned order dismissed the complaint of the appellant as the same was barred by time prescribed under Section 24A of the Act.