Limitation and authorised sale of pledged shares defeated the consumer claim; no deficiency in service was proved.

A consumer complaint challenging the sale of pledged shares was held barred by limitation because the cause of action arose when the shares were sold and the proceeds credited, yet the complaint was filed more than a decade later. The Commission applied limitation principles to consumer proceedings and treated the claim as stale and incapable of revival. On merits, it found no deficiency in service because the complainant had authorised sale of the shares in one lot, the bank acted on that authority, and the later objection to the extent of sale was treated as an afterthought. Alleged criminal proceedings did not establish compensable wrongful conduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the sale of pledged shares by the Bank amounted to deficiency in service or wrongful conduct justifying damages.

Issue (i): Whether the consumer complaint was barred by limitation

Analysis: The alleged cause of action arose when the pledged shares were sold and the sale proceeds were credited to the overdraft account. The complaint was instituted more than a decade later. The principles of limitation were held applicable to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a stale claim could not be revived before Consumer Forums after rights and obligations had settled.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation and could not be entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale of pledged shares by the Bank amounted to deficiency in service or wrongful conduct justifying damages

Analysis: The material on record showed that the complainant had authorised sale of the shares in one lot. The Bank acted on that authorization and credited the sale proceeds to her account. The later plea that only a part of the shares should have been sold was treated as an afterthought, and the record also showed subsequent withdrawals from the account after credit of the sale proceeds. The alleged criminal proceedings did not alter the civil consumer dispute or establish a compensable deficiency in service.

Conclusion: No deficiency in service or wrongful sale was proved against the Bank.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on limitation and on merits, and the dismissal of the complaint was upheld with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A stale consumer claim governed by limitation principles cannot be entertained, and where pledged shares are sold pursuant to the customer's authorization, no deficiency in service is made out merely because the customer later disputes the commercial wisdom of the sale.

---