BETHELA GABRIEL Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24.6.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (State Commission for short) in O.P. No. 202/98 filed by the appellant/complainant, which has been dismissed by the State Commission on the ground of complaint being not maintainable.

(2.) THE appellant/complainant is represented through her husband Shri Gabriel, who has appeared and argued the case himself. On behalf of the respondent/opposite party, Shri R. Vasudevan, Advocate has put in appearance and made his submissions. Both sides have submitted their written arguments.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Gabriel, the husband of the appellant/complainant, at length and the learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party. At the outset, it may be stated that the State Commission did not find it necessary to discuss the complaint on merits as ex facie the background of the filing of the complaint and then withdrawing it and further refilling it after a period of four years was sufficient for the State Commission to arrive at the conclusion that the complaint was barred by limitation and, therefore, could not be entertained.