TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (9) TMI 363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only as sale proceeds of the shares. There was no necessity to sell the shares of all the 30 companies for liquidating the outstanding as on the date of sale the debit balance on that date could have been liquidated by sale of shares of few companies only and .thereby the Bank would have saved the remaining securities. The Bank has thus failed to act prudently while handling the shares/securities of its customers and has thus put her to heavy loss by sale of all her shares, of different companies. Further on verification of prevailing market rates from the' list of Stock Exchange it was dear that the shares would have fetched more than ₹ 60,000.00 in the open market. On account of the fraudulent and deceitful methods of the Bank officials only a sum of ₹ 36,000.00 was credited by way of sale proceeds. On this account also she has been put to a loss of more than ₹ 20,000.00. This resultant loss also occurred due to the imprudent action and deceitful means adopted by the staff of the Bank. (3) It was also mentioned in the complaint that on her complaint the Metropolitan Magistrate. Secunderabad had convicted (Mr. J. K. Digaria, who was arrayed as accused No.2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.57 as on the date of sale the account showed a credit balance of ₹ 20,368.43. The complainant had been regularly drawing amounts from the account from 3rd November 1979 to 28th January, 1980. On the last mentioned date, the accounts showed accredit balance of ₹ 4,422.02. On 30th January, 1980 the complainant drew a cheque for ₹ 5,311.40 on herself which was honoured and as such the account showed a debit balance of ₹ 889.30. It was alleged that the claim of the complainant was false. It was also stated that the judgment in the criminal case has been appealed against and the appeal was pending before the Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad and as such the judgment of the Magistrate could not form the basis of the complaint. (7) It may be mentioned that while the complaint was pending with the State Commission the appeal in the criminal case was accepted on 25th May, 1990 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the conviction of sentence of the accused, Shri Digaria was set aside and he was acquitted of the offence under Section 420 under which the conviction had taken place. The other accused in the case was the Branch Manager of the Bank but h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The reply of the complainant to the above arguments was that the conviction or acquittal of Shri Digaria has no relevance to her complaint and her case is based upon the allegation of fraud leveled against the Bank. It was further urged by the complainant that law of limitation has not been made applicable to the complaints under the Act. (12) We are not prepared to accept the submissions of the complainant that law of limitation is not applicable to cases under the Act. There is catena of decisions of this Commission to the effect that principles of Limitation apply to complaints filed under the Act. If a cause of action cannot be agitated in a Civil Court, by reasons of its having become barred by limitation, it cannot be allowed to be made a ground for getting relief before the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After the expiry of period of limitation, rights and obligations of the parties to a dispute get settled. It would be against principles of justice to unsettle such settled matters. Hence the State Commission in rightly came to the conclusion that the claim for damages made by the complainant under the Act for the alleged deficiency in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....From the documents on file it is clear that she had asked the bank to sell the shares in one lot. The Bank could not have acted in contravention of her instructions and thus could not sell only few shares out of the lot for adjustment of the overdraft account. (16) The complainant's contention before us was that she had asked the Bank to sell the share in one lot because at that time it was represented to her by Mr. Digaria, an employee of the Bank, that the debit balance in her overdraft account was about ₹ 35,000.00 and as she had confidence in him she had asked the Bank to sell the shares in one lot and had she known that the debit balance in her account was only about ₹ 15,000.00 she would not have asked the Bank to sell her shares in one lot. This submission of the complainant is clearly an afterthought. In the judgment of Metropolitan Session Judge as well as in the order of the State Commission, it has been discussed at length that after the sale proceeds of her shares were credited in the overdraft account of the complainant, there was credit balance in that account and the complainant utilised the balance by drawing cheques upto January, 1980. This fact cl....