JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL) 1. Shri Chand Miyan, the complainant applied for loan from the Union Bank of India, opposite party. The said loan with interest accrued thereon was paid off on 5.2.2000. The complainant, Shri Chand Miyan has been requesting to return the original papers but the needful was not done. After about 7 years, on 27.7.2007, he filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and imposed compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 2. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal. Consequently, both the fora took the same view. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party-Bank. He submits that case is barred by time. We do not agree with his contention. This is a continuous cause of action, until or unless the petitioner-bank returns the documents to the petitioner or his father/guarantor, the cause of action will continue. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show acknowledgment that the said documents were returned to the complainant. It is argued that the documents were returned to his father, who was the guarantor in this case. The petitioner has failed to show the acknowledgment of receipt of those documents from his father as well. It is thus clear that the bank has tried to whitewash the truth. The bank is terribly remiss in discharge of its duties. The complainant is running to get his documents from pillar to post. It is difficult to fathom as to why the bank is unable to return those documents. This smacks of a fig leaf job. It is also surprising that the bank authorities have taken no action. No inquiry is pending against the concerned bank officer. The Bank has not found out who is responsible for this negligence and discrepancy. It is well known that bank authorities are prone to turn a Nelson’s eye to discipline in branches rather than tackling the issue by taking the bull by horns. The complainant must have spent a lot of money. He will have to spend more amount for getting the duplicate, which entails a tough procedure for a laymen. He has already faced the case in three consumer courts. The revision petition has no merits, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. | 
