Aggrieved by the order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal no.946/2006 dated -2- 27.8.2007, Punjab National Bank which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed the present revision petition. The State Commission by the impugned order has set aside the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint and remanded the case to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh in the light of observations made in the impugned order. Briefly stated, the facts are that Major R. P. Verma (retired) invested Rs.4,60,000/- in Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund Rising Income Scheme, 1994 (known as ‘RIP 1994) for a period of seven years and received allotment warrant in 1994. The scheme RPI 1994 was redeemed in October, 2001 and reflected the loss of Rs.1,66,980/- on the capital invested by the complainant. The PNB Mutual Funds Scheme (RPI) is said to be subsidiary of Punjab National Bank, the petitioner herein. Out of the said sum of Rs.1,66,980/-, the complainant was paid the sum of Rs.1,30,980/- when the petitioner recovered debt debentures in October, 2003. In short, the complainant suffered a capital loss of Rs.36,800/-, though his capital remained invested with the petitioner for a period of seven -3- years. According to him, he suffered the loss on account of negligence and unfair trade practices adopted by the petitioner/opposite party. According to him, he would have doubled the amount if it had remained deposited with the bank for a period of seven years. Complainant alleging deficiency in service on part of the petitioner/opposite party, filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the petitioner to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.4,60,000/- invested with it for the last seven years and further interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1,66,980/- plus Rs.36,800/- on account of loss of capital. Thus, the complainant had sought a sum of Rs.2,96,239/- on account of interest and loss of capital, and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and trauma. Petitioner/opposite party on being served entered appearance and contested the complaint. The stand taken by the petitioner was that he had no relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’ with the complainant; that the mutual fund was managed by Punjab National Bank Asset Management Company Limited (Erstwhile -4- known as Principal Asset Management Company Limited). According to the petitioner, vide resolution dated 07.7.2003 with the approval of SEBI on 18.3.2004 Principal Mutual Fund was authorized to take over and merge the schemes of Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund into pre existing schemes of the principal mutual fund; that w.e.f. 24.1.2005 Principal Asset Management Company Limited took over the Punjab National Bank Asset Management Company Limited; that the petitioner was a separate and distinct entity than Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund and since the scheme of PNB Mutual Fund including RIPS-94 stood merged with Principal Mutual Fund, the same was a necessary party; that the complaint filed was barred by limitation. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of delay as well as on merits, aggrieved against which the complainant filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, without deciding the question of limitation, remanded the case to the District Forum to decide it afresh by considering the Punjab National -5- Bank as the trustee of the Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund and its liability of trustees as provided by Section 23 of the Indian Trust Act. Counsel for the petitioner contends that without deciding the question of limitation, the State Commission could not have entered into the merits of dispute and remand the case to the District Forum with a direction to decide the dispute on merits; that it was obligatory on the part of the State Commission to first decide the question of limitation and then enter into the merits of the dispute; that all the schemes of Punjab National Bank were transferred to Principal Mutual Funds on 30.4.2004 with the approval of SEBI and after the takeover, Principal Mutual Funds became the Principal Trustee; that the petitioner was no longer the principal trustee of the Punjab National Bank Mutual Funds; that this objection has been specifically taken in the preliminary objections but the State Commission without even referring to all these facts, has held the petitioner to be Principal Trustee which is factually incorrect. In order to do complete justice between the parties, we had ordered SEBI to be impleaded as party respondent. SEBI has filed -6- its affidavit in rely and has broadly corroborated the facts which have been stated by the opposite party/petitioner. We had also appointed Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sethi, Senior Advocate to assist us as to whether the Punjab National Bank shall be liable for the loss suffered on the Punjab National Bank Mutual Funds floated by Punjab National Bank. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, Major R. P. Varma, counsel for SEBI and Sh. Puneet Sharma, a colleague of Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sethi whom we had appointed Amicus, we are of the opinion that the order under revision needs to be set aside and case remanded back to the State Commission to decide the dispute between the parties afresh in the light of affidavit dated 17.8.2010 filed by SEBI before this Commission. We are not recording detailed findings lest it may prejudice either of the parties on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the State Commission for a fresh decision. All the contentions are left OPEN. The State Commission shall now decide -7- the points raised by the petitioner i.e. regarding limitation and liabilities of the petitioner towards alleged loss suffered by the respondent from the purchase of Punjab National Bank Mutual Funds. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 09.11.2010. Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the first date of appearance. SEBI, which has been ordered to be impleaded as party respondent, shall continue to be party respondent to assist the State Commission as well. Copy of the Affidavit dated 17.8.2010 be sent to the State Commission along with a copy of this order for its perusal. We appreciate the effort put in as well as valuable assistance rendered to us by the Amicus in this case. -8- Copy of this order be sent to the office of the Amicus as well as the other parties.