REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.06.2016 of the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 89 of 2014. 2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner’s father had a savings bank account bearing no. 1203 with the respondent/ opposite party Bank. The pass book showed the balance at Rs.35,000/- in the year 1983. Petitioner’s father died in the year 1984 when he was a student and he had no knowledge of the account with the Bank. The petitioner found the pass book in August 2011 and thereafter the petitioner sent several letters to the Bank including legal notice and made an RTI application. The petitioner prayed for knowing the current status of account but the Bank did not provide the same. 3. The respondent/ opposite party/ Bank in their version has stated that the petitioner was not a consumer. The case was filed after 28 years after the death of the account holder. The bank was not required to preserve the records for such a long time. 4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Deoghar (the District Forum) vide its order dated 11.06.2014 while allowing the complaint gave the following order: “Therefore, this case is allowed and opponent is directed to get the updated information delivered to the petitioner within two months from the date of the order and opponent is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation and Rs.10,000/- cost of the case. If any failure, in paying the amount the petitioner will be entitled to get 9% interest upon the said amount”. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.06.2016 while allowing the appeal observed as under: “7. It appears that the complainant made a vague and sweeping statement in his complaint filed on 27.02.2012, that recently he found the pass book of his father. Nothing was said from where, from whose possession and in what circumstances, it was found, and why the complainant did not search his father’s pass book etc., for about 28 years. In his evidence also he simply said that in August 2011 he found his father’s pass book in the house. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the story of the complainant about the recovery of the pass book after about 27 years of the death of his father. Further, the complainant could not prove that the bank was required to maintain the relevant documents for such a long period. Learned counsel for the complainant referred to the list of documents to be preserved permanently, to show that the ‘General Ledger’ and the ‘Account opening forms’ are to be preserved permanently. But he could not show how such documents would show the status of the Saving Bank account maintained 28 years ago. 8. On the other hand, from the norms with regarding to preserving of documents, it appears that the ‘current saving, TD, RD, Cash Certificates, Fixed, Short, Special, Term, Called Deposit Registers’ were required to be preserved for a period not less than 10 years, immediately preceding the current year. Further, the ‘General Accounts – register’ was not required to be preserved for a period not less than 8 years. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the papers, it has to be held that the complainant was hopelessly time barred and there was no explanation at all for the long delay of about 28 years. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed”. 6. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. I have heard Mr Pratiush Pratik, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contended that the State Commission had erred in dismissing the case as time barred. The petitioner was not aware of the savings bank account no.1203 till August 2011. The respondent was guilty of deficiency in service as they refused to share the details of the said account as also release the money from the said account to him, as the legal heir of Late Kameshwar Prasad Jha. He brought to my notice the RBI circulars issued on 22.08.2008, 07.02.2012 and 02.02.2015. He further contended that the Bank had failed to issue notice to Late Kameshwar Prasad Jha before closing his account. 8. I am not impressed with the argument put forwarded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since he himself claimed in his complaint that he came to know of the said account only in August 2001. He cannot know the circumstances under which the account no.1203 of Late Kameshwar Prasad Jha was closed, whether it was closed by Late Kameshwar Prasad Jha himself or by the Bank without notice. 9. The State Commission has correctly observed that as per the norms with regard to preserving of documents of SB account the records were required to be preserved for a period of not less than 10 years, immediately preceding the current year. After a lapse of almost 28 years, the petitioner cannot hold the respondent guilty of deficiency of service if the record is not available. The complaint is hopelessly time barred as Late K P Jha passed away in 1984 and the complaint has been filed in March 2012 after taking up the matter with the Bank for the first time only in 2011. 10. In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
