Full Judgment
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral)
1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, pleading following cause of action. Appellant had purchased Kisan Vikas Patras in the year 2000 and the total amount invested by her was to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac. On maturity of the Vikas Patras, after a period of six-and-a-half years, a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs was to be paid to her, in the month of September, 2006. Appellant lost the original Vikas Patras and approached respondent No.3, the Post Master of Post Office Jwalamukhi, from whom the certificates had been purchased, to issue duplicate Vikas Patras. She was required to complete certain formalities. She was also required to execute an indemnity bond on 06.11.2006, but nothing on account of maturity value of the Vikas Patras was paid to her. In July, 2007, a son of the appellant expired and she herself was also not enjoying good health, because of which she authorized respondent No.5, Smt. Saroj, an agent of the postal authorities, to take up the matter with respondent No.3. Respondent No.4, who happened to be a clerk in the Post Office at Jwalamukhi, apprised the appellant of the numbers of Vikas Patras, upon which the appellant made four separate applications on 08.01.2007, for issuance of duplicate Vikas Patras. In the month of February, 2007, one Smt. Rani Sood, also an agent of postal authorities, approached the complainant and asked her to open a savings bank account at Post Office Jwalamukhi, so that the money payable on account of maturity value of the Vikas Patras was credited in that account. The appellant gave a sum of Rs.100/- to said Smt. Rani Sood for opening the savings bank account and an account was opened at Post Office Jwalamukhi, which bore No.1312039. On 24.07.2007, a letter was received by the appellant from respondent No.3, intimating that maturity value of the Vikas Patras already stood paid to her by means of a cheque dated 25.01.2007. Appellant alleged that she had never received any cheque nor was she paid the money in cash and that the entire amount of Rs.2.00 lacs payable on account of maturity value of the certificates was due to her from the postal authorities, i.e. respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
3. A common reply was filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, in which it was admitted that Kisan Vikas Patras had been purchased by the appellant in the year 2000 and that on maturity of those Vikas Patras, a sum of Rs.2,02,340/- was payable in September, 2006. It was stated that the said amount of money had been paid by means of a cheque bearing No.S-5875637 on 25.01.2007 and the appellant had got the amount of that cheque credited in savings bank account No.1881856, Post Office Nurpur and the said savings bank account had been opened by the appellant and one Shri Dinesh Sharma on 17.02.2007. It was stated that on the very day of opening of the account and crediting of the amount of cheque in that account, i.e. 17.02.2007, a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs had been withdrawn from that account. It was admitted that a savings bank account had been opened in Post Office Jwalamukhi by the appellant, as alleged in the complaint.
4. After the reply was filed by respondents No.1 to 4, Shri Dinesh Sharma, who was shown to be a joint account holder with the appellant in the savings bank account opened on 17.02.2007, and from which account a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs was stated to have been withdrawn, was made a party. Said Dinesh Sharma filed a reply, in which he stated that the story put up by the appellant regarding loss of original certificates was a concocted one and that, in fact, the appellant had given the Vikas Patras to one Shri Suresh Chaudhary and one Shri Ashwani Dogra, a friend of Suresh Chaudhary, and they gave the certificates to him (Dinesh Sharma) in lieu of a debt of Rs.2.00 lacs, which they owed to him, and that they brought Kanta Sharma, appellant/complainant to Nurpur, where she opened a joint account with him (the answering respondent Dinesh Sharma). Then the money was withdrawn and paid to him. Thereafter, the appellant made Suresh Chaudhary and Ashwani Dogra also party to the complaint. These newly added two opposite parties adopted the reply filed by Dinesh Sharma.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, dismissed the complaint holding that the same was barred by time and also that no deficiency in service on the part of respondents No.1 to 4 had been proved.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.
7. It is the appellants own case, per para-6 of the complaint, that she received letter dated 27.04.2007 from respondent No.3 that the money due on account of Vikas Patras had been paid to her by means of a cheque dated 25.01.2007, upon which she approached opposite parties/respondents No.3 and 4, but they were not prepared even to talk to her. That means, it was in the month of April when the appellant came to know about the denial of her alleged claim by respondents No.3 and 4. She filed the complaint in the month of July, 2009, or say more than two years after her claim was denied. Limitation for filing a complaint is two years. She did not make any application for condonation of delay.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a legal notice was served and that limitation is to be counted from the date of issuance of legal notice. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Limitation starts not from the date of service of notice of grievance, but from the date, when the cause of action based on the alleged grievance accrues and once the limitation starts running, no subsequent event can stop it or extend it.
9. Even on merits, the claim of the appellant must fail. Respondents No.1 to 4 have stated that they had issued a cheque for Rs.2,02,340/- and that the cheque was credited in a joint savings bank account with Post Office Nurpur and on the very day of the crediting of the amount of cheque in the said account, i.e. 17.02.2007, money had been withdrawn. Savings bank account was in the joint names of the appellant and Dinesh Sharma, respondent No.6. In his reply, Dinesh Sharma admitted that joint savings bank account was opened in the name of the appellant and himself and the amount of cheque was credited in that account and that the appellant withdrew an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs from that account and gave the money to her, because the Vikas Patras had been handed over to him by the respondents No.7 and 8 towards discharge of their debt, which they owed to him, and the said two respondents had been given the Vikas Patras by the appellant herself. Respondents No. 7 and 8, by adopting the reply of respondent No.6, have endorsed the aforesaid plea of respondent No.6.
10. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the savings bank account in Nurpur Post Office was allegedly opened on 17.02.2007, while the money due on account of Vikas Patras is stated to have been paid on 25.01.2007, and this itself nocks the bottom out of the respondents plea. Respondents No.1 to 4 have not stated that they paid the money in cash on 25.01.2007. Their plea is that they issued the cheque on that date and the cheque was credited in the savings bank account at Nurpur on 17.02.2007, on which date the bank account was opened. Hence the submission is rejected.
11. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed both on account of being barred by time as also on merits.
12. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.