Complainant/petitioner got a fixed deposit (FD) of Rs.15,000/- on 15.3.1992 with the respondent for a period of 2 years.  The FD was to mature on 25.3.1994 with a maturity value of Rs.19,001.55.  The petitioner produced the said FD for redemption on 15.3.2006, as the same had been misplaced and found on 15.3.2006.  Respondent was not ready to pay the maturity amount, as the savings account record of the petitioner from 1994 to 1995 was not available.  Ombudsman was approached but the opposite party was not ready to solve the grievance.  Thus, being aggrieved, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the respondent to pay Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 13.3389% per annum along with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.19,001.55 to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7% with effect from 26.3.1994 till realization.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded by way of compensation.

          Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission along with an application to condone the delay of 38 days.  Notice on the application for condonation of delay was issued to the petitioner.  Petitioner, in response to the notice, put in appearance and opposed the application for condonation of delay.  State Commission, after hearing the respondent and the petitioner, condoned the delay and disposed of the appeal on merits.  It was held that the complaint of the petitioner was beyond limitation and, therefore, not maintainable.  The complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed this Revision Petition with the allegation that the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent in violation of the principles of natural justice without issuing notice to him.  That the petitioner was heard on the application for condonation of delay only and not on merits of the dispute.

          Petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent have been heard.

          Para-3 of the order of the State Commission reads as under :

“3. We, therefore, propose to deal with limitation aspect involved in this case first. Hence, we have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent in person on this application.”

          Perusal of this para gives an impression that the petitioner was heard on the application for condonation of delay only and not on merits.  Be that as it may, to do the substantial justice between the parties, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission to the extent it has decided the appeal on merits and remand the case back to the State Commission to decide it afresh on merits, including the question regarding maintainability of the complaint, in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent.

          Parties to appear before the State Commission on 25.8.2011.

          All contentions are left open.  Anything stated in this order be not taken as expression of opinion.  State Commission shall decide the appeal without being influenced by anything stated in the earlier orders or this order. 

We would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal at an early date.