Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

                   Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act, 1986 has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 15/01/2018 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata unit III (south) in Complaint Case No. CC/147/2017 dismissing the complaint on contest on the ground that the complaint lacks maintainability.

             The facts, in brief, as emerged out of the instant complaint and allied records, were that the Appellant/Complainant who happened to be an employee of the Respondent/OP Bank, obtained H B Loans from the Respondent/OP No. 1 Branch of the said Bank, keeping 8 number of Term Deposits opened by him during his tenure in the Respondent/OP No.1  Bank Branch between 1985 and 1994 as collateral security.

                    The repayment of the entire loan was made within time and the deposits were matured between the year 1991 and 1996. The T D Certificate, however, were not returned by the Respondent/OP No. 1 bank Branch to the Appellant/Complainant in spite of full repayment of loan for which the collateral securities were kept and the matter of keeping the T Ds as security faded away from memory of the Appellant/Complainant with the passing of days. Meanwhile, the Appellant/complainant left the respondent/ OP No. 1 Branch on transfer.

                The Respondent/OP No. 1, vide its letter dated 23/04/2003 communicated for the first time to the Appellant/Complainant requesting him to take back the deposited TDs. The Appellant/Complainant responded through its letter dated 09/05/2003 requesting the Respondent/Op No 1 either to renew the said TDs or to keep the deposits on “as it is” basis.

                   Appellant/Complainant’s effort which included his communications, subsequently made to the Respondent/OP No.1 towards renewal of the TDs yielded him no effective result. He then filed a complaint before the Bank Ombudsman which ordered for payment of interest at the rate much less than what the Appellant/Complainant was entitled to, allegedly, in terms of the RBI Instruction which was not applicable to the Appellant/Complainant.

                The other reason for not allowing the T D rate of interest was the failure of the Appellant/Complainant to produce the TDs before the Respondent/OP No1 in time. The order of Ld. Ombudsman was, allegedly, not a reasoned one as the TDs could not be produced because the same were not handed over to the Appellant/Complainant on maturity and even on full payment of loan for which the TDs were kept as collateral security. Allegedly, those TDs were misplaced at the level of the Respondent/OP No.1 and were subsequently recovered after thorough search of records of the Respondent/OP No. 1 Bank Branch. The Respondent/OP No. 1, however, deposited in his Account an amount of Rs. 6, 78, 674/- not giving the interest as per the Appellant/Complainant’s entitlement in compliance of the order of the Ld. Ombudsman and ignoring the request of the Appellant/Complainant not to deposit the sum as, what was stated, the said amount was lesser by Rs. 3,16,442/-, the amount he was entitled to get in the form of interest.

                    Being aggrieved with the above decision of the Ld. Ombudsman, the Appellant/Complainant filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum. The impugned Judgment and Order which was under challenge in the instant Appeal, originated from the said Complaint Case.

                 We have heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides who defended the interests of their respective client as they had done before the Ld. District Forum and have considered their submissions.

            The Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum was dismissed on the ground that the complaint was viewed as not maintainable as per provisions envisaged under the C P Act,1986. Therefore, we consider the ground of rejection of the Complaint Case to be verified first before going into the merit of the case and thinking over other points raised by both sides at the time of placing before the Bench their respective submission.

                   We did not consider the claim as time barred as the complaint was filed after the Ombudsman vide his letter dated 05/07/2017 at para-4 finally his inability to change his decision and to approach as well the appropriate Legal Fora to have the Appellant/Complainant’s grievance addressed. Considering 05/07/2017 as the date of initiation of the cause of action, the Complaint Case, since it was filed on 16/02/2018, did not appear to be barred by limitation.

                We did not even consider it a lapse on the part of the Appellant/Complainant to approach the Consumer Fora for having his grievance addressed. The major factor that restricts the intervention of the Consumer Fora in similar type of cases seems to be the relationship between the parties.

                We had gone through the BNA placed before the Bench on behalf of the Respondent/OP Nos 1 and 2. In an uncontroverted averment at para 7 of the BNA, the Respondents/OPs pointed out some interest benefits on the subject loan that the Appellant/Complainant had enjoyed as an employee of the Branch.

               Further, the Appellant/Complainant, while explaining his entitlement in the last para of the Page No. 107, being the continuation of the letter dated 22/11/2014, running page 106, claimed as staff of the Respondent/OP Bank, an added interest over and above the General Interest.

                It appeared from the above that the Appellant/Complainant was not only an  ex-employee of the Respondents/OPs, rather the instant issue originated more out of employer employee relationship which the Consumer Forum did not have any authority to adjudicate.

                 In the above context, we would like refer to the decision of this Commission dated 06.12.2010 in S.C. Case No. FA/231/2010 [Chief Executive (Works), the Hooghly Mills Company Ltd.—Vs—Sri Sachin Kundu] wherein this Commission, on elaborate discussion and citing different judgments including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [Bihar School Examination Board—Vs—Suresh Prasad Sinha], allowed the Appeal setting aside the impugned order of the Forum below with consequent dismissal of the complaint observing in the same lines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bihar School Examination Board (supra) that there was no relationship of Consumer between the Employer Appellant and the Complainant/Respondent.

                 We too, in the same logic, did not find any relationship of consumer between the Appellant/Complainant and Respondents/OPs because of the Appellant/Complainant’s bid to derive interest benefit as an employee of the Respondents/OPs (employer) both way as taker of loan at lesser rate of interest and receiver of maturity benefit of the TDs at higher rate of interest.

                The maintainability point being decided against the complaint, we felt it of no necessity to discuss on any other point came up at the time of hearing.

                Such being the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the issue in the Complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate.

                 Hence,

Ordered

                 that the Appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned Judgment and Order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.

              The Appellant/Complainant, however, is given liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for having his grievances addressed and, in that case, the Appellant/Complainant will be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Laxmi engineering Works—Vs.—PSG Industrial Institute, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1428, for the purpose of exclusion of the time spent in pursuing the case before the Commission.