PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.5.2013 passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guwahati (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 52/2011 –  United Bank of India Vs. M/s. Janta Paradise Hotel & Restaurant by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District  Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent is a registered partnership firm took term loan from OP/petitioner in 1986, which was cleared through a compromise in 1995. It was further submitted that OP debited complainant’s term account for Rs.98,894.05 on account of DICGCL guarantee fee which was to be refunded to the complainant  as OP had withdrawn from the scheme. In this respect OP also confirmed by letter dated 23.9.1993 addressed to their higher authorities. Inspite of repeated letters written to the OP for refund of aforesaid amount, amount was not refunded. OP by letter dated 26.5.2008 in reference to complainant’s letters dated 18.11.2007 and 18.1.2008 informed that matter has been referred to higher authorities, but so far amount has not been refunded.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP complainant filed complaint before District forum.  OP resisted complaint and submitted that claim is time barred and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer.  It was further submitted that OP rightly debited aforesaid amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund aforesaid amount with compensation of Rs.10,000/-.  Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of settlement in the year 1995 and claim being barred by limitation and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer, Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5.      It is admitted case of the parties that matter was settled between the parties in the year 1995.  Complainant in cross-examination admitted that statements of accounts were regularly obtained from the Bank by their firm.  He also admitted that last deduction of guarantee fee was on 11.5.1992. As matter was settled in the year 1995, question of guarantee fee too must have been finalized at the time of settlement and in such circumstances; no grievance remained pending for refund of aforesaid amount.

6.      As far limitation is concerned, admittedly, last deduction was made in the year 1992 and matter was settled in the year 1995 and first letter submitted by complainant is dated 18.11.2007 and next letters dated 18.1.2008 and 24.5.2008, which were replied by OP by letter dated 26.5.2008.  Complainant has not placed any correspondence on record from 1995 to 2007.  In such circumstances, claim is clearly time barred.  Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as claim was referred by OP to higher authorities as intimated  by letter dated 26.5.2008 and his request was turned down by Ombudsman and RBI by letter dated 12.5.2009, complaint filed by him is well within limitation. This argument is devoid of force because correspondence does not extend limitation, particularly, when first request for refund is made after claim became time barred.  In this matter, claim became time barred in the year 1995 and letter has been written on 18.11.2007.  Complainant has not placed any letter from 1995 to 2007 and thus, claim being barred by limitation, learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint.

7.      Admittedly, complainant was registered partnership firm took term loan in the year 1986 from the OP. Nowhere it has been pleaded by complainant that loan was taken for earning livelihood by means of self-employment and in such  circumstances, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint.

8.      In the light of above discussion, it becomes clear that inspite of the fact that claim was not maintainable and was time barred, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal.  In such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed.

9.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 24.5.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 52/2011 – United Bank of India Vs. M/s. Janta Paradise Hotel & Restaurant and order of District Forum dated 21.9.2011 passed in CPA Case No. 8/10 - M/s. Janta Paradise Hotel & Restaurant Vs. United Bank of India is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.