Correspondence Does Not Extend The Limitation Period: Telangana State Commission

The Telangana State Commission, presided by Smt. Meena Ramanathan And Sri. V. V. Seshubabu dismissed an appeal as time barred and held that exchanging letters or communication does not pause or extend the statutory deadline for filing a legal complaint. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant's husband took a loan of Rs. 4,90,000 from the opposite party to buy a car, agreeing to repay in EMIs of Rs. 18,103. The opposite party disbursed Rs. 4,71,897 instead but later refunded Rs. 10,725. He paid EMIs regularly until September 2013. Later, the opposite party claimed he owed Rs. 3,43,957 for 12 missed EMIs and forcibly seized the car without proof. A police complaint was filed against the agents. The car was sold, and sale proceeds adjusted, but no account statement was provided despite repeated demands. The complainant claims the stress caused by the opposite party's actions led to her husband's death. She demanded the car's return and compensation, but the opposite party denied liability. A legal notice was issued, but the opposite party refused responsibility. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, which dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission of Telangana. Contentions of the Opposite Party The opposite party argued that the complaint is not valid in fact or law. It was argued that they financed ₹4,90,000 for the complainant's husband to buy a car. When EMIs were not paid, the car was seized and sold in a public auction after notifying the husband, who did not respond. Even after adjusting the sale proceeds, ₹44,979 remained due, for which a demand notice was sent, but no payment was made. They claim the complaint is time-barred and sought dismissal with costs. Observations by the State Commission The State Commission observed that Ex.A1 showed the opposite parties seized the vehicle for non-payment, informed the borrower to clear dues, and later sold the vehicle, realizing Rs. 4,00,000. The balance due remained Rs. 44,979. The cause of action arose when the letter was issued. It was held that correspondence does not extend the limitation period. Ex.A6 revealed the complainant's husband passed away, but the complaint was filed after a delay of over two years without a condonation petition under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The case cited, J.M.S.A. Stores Ltd. v. Ravi Shankar Rao, was deemed irrelevant as it involved voluntary surrender of a vehicle, unlike this case, where the vehicle was seized. The Commission found the complaint barred by time, dismissed the appeal without costs, and upheld the District Commission's order. Case Title: Pendli Sujatha Vs. Shriram City Union Finance Limited Case Number: F.A. No. 632/2019Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Correspondence Does Not Extend The Limitation Period: Telangana State Commission

Ayushi Rani

Tags