SYNDICATE BANK Vs. GYANCHAND CHOUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1483 of 2009 - Syndicate Bank v. Sri Gyanchand Choudhari by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent invested Rs. 20,000/ - in FD in the OP Bank and he has also invested Rs. 30,000/ - in the name of his mother. The FDRs were to be matured in 1985. For his legal necessities, he obtained loan from the bank on the above FD's along with other FD's from OP -1 Bank. The complainant and his mother cleared the loans out of the proceeds of the other FDR receipts and from money of their own. The OP -1 returned the FDRs to him after the loan account was full cleared. However, FDRs were misplaced and he forgotten about it. He shut -down his business due to fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, where he had stored his goods. He shifted to Rajasthan to earn out his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing his house, he traced the FDRs. Thereafter, he requested OP -1 to renew the FDRs. OP -1 dodging the matter on one or the other pretext did not renew it. In the mean while his mother expired. He wrote letter on 22.9.2003 and requested the Zonal office, Regional Office, Head Office of OP to renew the FDRs. OP -1 asked him to wait for some time. On 14.2.2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the original FDR to OP -1 and accordingly he sent the original FDRs along with letter dated 14.2.2004 under POD. But OP -1 neither renewed the FDRs nor paid its value and on the other hand illegally retained the FDRs with it. Repeated demands and reminders to the OP went in vain. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant and his mother Smt. Sosharabai invested as per No. 129597/681 and 129598/682. But on both the fixed deposits the loan was availed by them as per loan account No. LD 98/85 and LD 97/85 and accordingly the said original FD receipts had been deposited with respondent No. 1. The proceeds of the said fixed deposit receipts have been adjusted. The proceeds of FDR No. 129597/681 have been adjusted on 9.10.1985 towards the loan account No. LD 98/85. So also the proceeds of FDR No. 129598/682 have been adjusted on 9.10.1985 towards the loan account No. LD 97/85. It was further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint as barred by limitation. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide order dated 13.8.2008 and matter was remanded back to learned District forum while observing that claim cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay as it is a recurring cause of action. After remand, learned District forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to renew both the FDRs together with interest as shown in FDRs and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/ -. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of adjusting amount of FDRs in loan account and inspite of complaint barred by limitation, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as earlier order of learned State Commission holding complaint in limitation was not challenged and it attained finality, complaint cannot be treated as barred by limitation and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.