Petitioner’s father, S. C. Gupta, was a partner in the firm with the respondent.  After his death, his other partner Rajinder Pd. Gupta was allowed to operate the firm Account by the respondent bank.  Petitioner being the legal heir of S. C. Gupta filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the bank to recover the amount withdrawn by Rajinder Pd. Gupta on the ground that Rajinder Pd. Gupta could not operate the Account after the death of S. C.

-2-

Gupta as the partnership stood dissolved on the death of S. C. Gupta.  That the bank was deficient in letting Rajinder Pd. Gupta to operate the firm Account after the death of S. C. Gupta.  The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

          Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  The State Commission has held that there was no relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’ between the petitioner and the respondent bank.

          We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  There was no relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’ between the petitioner and the respondent bank as the respondent did not have any Account with the bank.  Moreover, such disputes cannot be decided by consumer courts being the courts of limited jurisdiction.  Dismissed.

          Petitioner is, however, put at liberty to seek his remedy from the civil court as per law, along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent

-3-

before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583