SHALIMAR GAS SERVICE Vs. MODI LPG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost his case before the District Forum the complainant has filed this appeal. He mortgaged his properties with the opposite party -State Bank of India on 4.8.1969 and 19.3.1971. For recovery of the amount due under the mortgage the opposite party filed morgage suit in O.S. No. 199/73 on the file of the Sub -Court, Thanjavur. A decree was passed and full satisfaction was recorded on 18.10.1984. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not returned the title deeds inspite of repeated demands. This amounts to deficiency in service on their part. On these allegations the complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to deliver the title deeds and also a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/ -.

(2.) THE opposite party contended that in the mortgage suit in O.S. No. 199/73 on the file of the Sub -Court, Thanjavur, a preliminary decree and then a final decree were passed and in the Execution Petition, full satisfaction was recorded on 18.10.1984. The present claim for delivery of documents is time -barred. The title deeds had been received by the complainant and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and on going through the relevant records, we are of the view that the award passed by the District Forum cannot be upheld as correct. The claim is clearly barred by limitation. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the title deeds in question which was mortgaged, a suit was filed for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage and a decree was passed and in the E.P. full satisfaction was recorded as early as on 18.10.1984. Thereafter there is nothing to show that the complainant asked for return of the documents. It appears only on 16.6.1994 he has sent Ex. B1 Lawyer's Notice to the opposite party asking for return of the documents and to that the opposite party has sent a reply through Advocate Ex. B2 dated 10.10.1994 stating that it would appear that the complainant has received the title deeds and his claim now is barred by limitation. There is absolutely nothing to show that any claim was made by the complainant between 18.10.1984 when full satisfaction of the mortgage decree was recorded and 16.6.1994 when Ex. B1 notice was sent. From the date the full satisfaction was recorded, the complainant had cause of action to make a claim. The present complaint has been filed on 13.9.1996. This is clearly barred by limitation because a complaint could be filed before 18.6.1993 within 3 years from the date of cause of action and after 18.6.1993 within 2 years from the date of cause of action. 18.6.1993 is the date when amendment was introduced in Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act which deals with limitation. The District Forum has not properly considered the contention of limitation. In this view of the matter, the complaint cannot be maintained.