1. Aggrieved by the order dated 7th February, 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (For short he State Commission in First Appeal No. 1453/2004, the petitioner Chit Fund Company has filed the present petition under Section 21 B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the original complainant B. Sampath Kumar against the order dated 27-10-2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Warangal in CD No. 172/2004 by which order the said District Forum had dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation going by the provisions of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as also on the ground that the claim raised in the complaint would have been raised in the Civil Suit filed by the Chit Fund Company against the complainant in the Civil Court. However, State Commission allowed the appeal and deemed the complaint within time and allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner Chit Fund Company to pay sum of Rs.62,000/- (Rs.32,000/- in Chit Ticket NO. 41 and Rs.30,000/- in Chit Ticket NO. 43) to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of termination of the chits till the date of payment less 5% commission on both the chits amounts together with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 2. We have heard Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent/complainant as he remained unpresented on record despite service of notice. Even today no one is present on behalf of the respondent though a notice for today hearing was issued to him as far as on 15-06-2001, which has not been returned back and therefore there is presumption of service of notice on the respondent in terms of Section 28 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. Mr. D. Bharat Kumar would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the State Commission erred in Law firstly by holding that the complaint filed was within time and secondly that the petitioner Chit Fund Company was not within its rights to recover the amount from the Chit Fund ticket 41 and 43 of the complainant/respondent in accordance with Clause 2 and 4 of the Guarantee Bond which the complainant had executed at the time of subscribing to the chit. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of this Commission dated 24th February, 2009 in revision petition no. 1817 of 2005 titled as M/s Sai Priya Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. K. Bullabbi. In that case a similar question arose and this Commission on interpretation of Clause 2 & 4 of the Guarantee Bond held that the chit fund company was justified in deducting the amount due to them in respect of other chit holders for which the complainant had stood guarantor. We have no reason to differ from the said view and going by the same, we must also hold that the petitioner has committed no wrong in appropriating/recovering amounts lying in credit with them in respect of chit ticket no. 41 and 43 belonging to the respondent/complainant. Therefore, no order could have been passed for payment of the said amounts. 4. So far as the limitation is concerned, view taken by the District Forum appears to be correct in as much as amount sought to be recovered by the complainant seeking the payment of the amount of the chits was deducted/adjusted as far back as on 12-02-1998 and thereafter due to non-payment of the amount, civil suit came to be filed against the respondent/complainant and a decree was passed against him. On these facts, the cause of action for filing the complaint, if any, had arisen to the complainant in the year 1998 and computing the period of limitation of two years from that date, the complaint could have been filed latest by the end of year 2000 but the complaint was filed only in the year 2003, which was barred by limitation. So on both counts order of the State Commission is legally unsustainable is hereby set aside and as a result the complaint shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Order accordingly.