Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by the appellant against the bank regarding a loan repayment guarantee. The appellant received a post-dated cheque from M/s. Rao Constructions, guaranteed by the bank's manager, but was advised not to present it just before the due date. A new cheque was issued, which was later returned due to insufficient funds. The appellant sought payment based on the bank's guarantee but was denied liability in a communication dated February 20, 1999. The appellant filed a complaint with the National Commission on October 18, 1999, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Supreme Court analyzed the timeline and determined that the cause of action arose from the bank's denial of liability, making the complaint timely. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the National Commission's order, and directed that the complaint be heard on its merits, ensuring both parties had the opportunity to present evidence. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Limitation Period - Cause of Action - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A - The National Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation, but the court found that the cause of action arose when the bank denied liability on February 20, 1999. The court held that the complaint filed on October 18, 1999 was within the limitation period and remitted the matter back to the National Commission for disposal (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the appellant was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the National Commission's order, and remitted the matter for disposal in accordance with law, ensuring both parties had the opportunity to present evidence.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- Limitation period
- Cause of action
- Guarantee of payment
