M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The Revision petitioner, as complainant, filed a case against the opposite party bank, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.98000/-, as well to return certain documents, but not within the time, as mandated under Sec.24(A)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, resulting CMP.No.119/2010, before the District Forum, to condone the delay of 568 days, in preferring the complaint, for the above stated relief, which was opposed by the respondent/ opposite party bank, contending that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay, which deserves to be rejected.
(2.) The District Forum, considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well by going through the averments, felt the delay of 568 days, which should be described as extraordinary delay, was not to its satisfaction, and in this view, petition to condone the delay was dismissed on 15.9.2010, which is under challenge, in this revision.
(3.) As represented before us, the complainant had borrowed a loan from the bank, and for the non-payment, a case came to be filed before the civil court, wherein, the matter was settled between the parties. It appears the documents entrusted by the complainant, have filed before the court concerned by the bank, and because of the settlement, there itself they ought to have been made arrangement, for taking back the documents, which they failed. Thus having failed, alleging deficiency, for the non-return of the documents, the complainant is entitled to nearly a sum of Rs.1 lakh, case has been filed a complaint, that too not in time, resulting a petition, as stated above.;