RAJINDER JASSAL Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 23.07.2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint No. 103/2009 Rajinder Jassal Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed at initial stage as barred by limitation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant Proprietor of Jassal Exports was running export business and having Bank account with OP No. 3/Respondent No. 3. Complainant received cheque of $33,000/- dated 13.5.2004 and deposited it with OP No. 3 on 19.5.2004, which was cleared on 19.6.2004 and amount was credited in his account. After 21/2 years, OP intimated complainant that aforesaid cheque of $33,000/- returned back as unpaid and deducted a sum of Rs.2,21,574/- from the account of complainant and asked complainant to arrange balance Rs.13,10,000/-. It was further alleged that complainant received another cheque for $54,800 dated 10.8.2004 from Nigeria against export order which was deposited in complainant's account with OP No. 3 and it was cleared on 2.9.2004. By letter dated 31.3.2007, OP informed complainant that amount of fraudulent cheque of $ 33,000/- has been deducted from complainant's account and further deducted illegally Rs. 2,12,515/- towards interest and Rs.32,000/- towards court fees and legal expenses. Complainant requested OP to rectify aforesaid mistakes by letters dated 22.3.2007 and 5.3.2008, but OP by letter dated 17.3.2008 refused to rectify mistakes. It was further submitted that OP filed suit for recovery of Rs.13,83,675/- in DRT-III at Mumbai and after filing the suit deducted aforesaid amount from complainant's account and withdrew suit. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission with a prayer to direct OP to credit amount of cheques of $ 33,000/- and $54,800/- and to refund the illegal deductions made from his account and further prayed for interest and compensation. Complainant also filed application for condonation of delay, if any, along with complaint. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed complaint as barred by limitation against which, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in appeal as well on M.A. No. 1327 of 2010 for recalling the order imposing cost.