NARENDRA OJHA Vs. DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 7/7/2017 in Appeal No. 338 of 2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (in short, the 'State Commission') setting aside the order dtd. 14/7/2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gopalganj (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 19 of 2011 holding deficiency in service by the respondent in not refunding the petitioners' deposit with interest and directing the repayment of the maturity amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of repayment within one month. The State Commission held the complaint barred by limitation with the delay not being sufficiently explained.

(2.) The brief facts of the case according to the petitioners, who are husband and wife, are that they had opened a joint account under the 'Laxmi Savings Scheme' with the Gahani Chakia Mini Bank Branch, Gopalganj of the respondent no. 2 bank on 19/2/1999 and deposited Rs.12,000.00 for 66 months with a maturity value of Rs.24,000.00 on 19/8/2004. Subsequently, two more deposits were made similarly for Rs.10,000.00 for 72 months on 14/7/1999 with maturity value of Rs.20,000.00 on 14/7/2005 and Rs.2,000.00 on 25/9/2000 for 72 months with maturity value of Rs.4,000.00 on 13/9/2006. On maturity of the first deposit, respondent no 2 informed that the deposit would be repaid on receipt from the Head Office at Gopalganj which was not done despite the petitioners making repeated enquiries. The petitioners state that they were similarly informed when the other two deposits also matured. They subsequently learnt that the bank had been closed and therefore they sent a legal notice on 25/10/2010 but received no reply. The District Forum was approached by way of a complaint which was decided in their favour, on contest and the refund of the three deposits amounting to Rs.52,000.00 with 12% interest and Rs.25,000.00 as compensation was awarded. In appeal, the State Commission held that the complaint was barred by limitation and set aside the order of the District Forum. This order is impugned before us.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the State Commission's order on the grounds that the State Commission's order erred in not appreciating that there was a continuing cause of action since the money received by the bank respondent no 2 had not been refunded and, therefore, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 there was a continuing cause of action. It is therefore argued that the State Commission's order is seriously flawed, and the petition deserves to be allowed.