Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant/respondent obtained two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs.2000/- and Rs.2100/- for 6 months from Laxmi Commercial Bank in the year 1960.  Later on, Laxmi Commercial Bank merged with Canara Bank, the petitioner herein.  Khushi Ram, the husband of the respondent, was partner of a firm namely M/s.Beli Ram Swarup.  This firm of joint family had taken loan from the bank and failed to pay the same.  After the death of Khushi Ram, the respondent became partner of the firm replacing her deceased husband.  The Laxmi Commercial Bank, by letter dated 20.2.1961, informed the complainant that the proceeds of the FDRs had been adjusted against the loan of the firm.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum in the year 1999, i.e. after a delay of 39 years for encashment of the FDRs. 

          The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the maturity value of the FDRs with interest from the date of maturity as applicable to the respondent.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 

The only point canvassed by the petitioner before us is that the complaint was barred by limitation.  Section 24A provides that the complaint can be filed within 2 years from the date of arising of the cause of action.  Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India vs. M/s. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) – (2009) CPJ 481 has held that the provisions of Section 24A are peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. That the expression, `shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder.  That the consumer fora were debarred from entertaining any complaint, which was beyond the period of limitation.  Para-8 of the said judgement reads as under :

“It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown.   The expression, `shall not admit a complaint’ occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it.   If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.”

In the present case, the respondent had obtained the two FDRs of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,100/- in the year 1960.  After the respondent became partner of the firm M/s.Beli Ram Swarup on the death of her husband, the amount of FDRs was adjusted against the loan of the firm.  Petitioner had informed the respondent about this fact on 20.2.1961.  The cause of action arose to the respondent from that date.  The present complaint was filed after 38 years of the adjustment of the amount against the loan due to the firm, which was clearly barred by limitation.  Dismissed.