Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Presiding Judicial Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 09/11/2009 passed in Consumer complaint No.29/2008, Shri Bhaulal Chindu Sonawane V/s. The Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (in short ‘Forum below’). (2) Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3, The Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik, which represents erstwhile Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 - The Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nashik, consumer complaint was filed since said institution failed to return amounts of deposit and amounts lying in the recurring deposit account of the Complainant. Forum below after hearing both the parties was pleased to dismiss the consumer complaint and feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by original Complainant. (3) Heard both sides. Perused record. (4) In the instant case, till the deposits as well as the amount in the recurring account are not refunded the cause of action remains continuous. It may be that, after maturity Opposite Party Credit Society may not give interest as per the rules, but, cause of action being continuous, the consumer complaint cannot be thrown away on the ground of limitation. Further more, referring to letter dated 07.12.2007 issued by Respondent/Opposite Party No.3, Credit Society, if it can be said that said letter would give cause of action, since said credit society refused to return the deposit along with interest, but, on the contrary shown their willingness to return the deposits primary amounts only (without any interest). Looking at it from any angle, the consumer complaint which is filed on 31.01.2008 is certainly not barred by limitation and observations of Forum below to that effect are improper, nay, illegal. (5) In the instant case, it is the case of the Complainant, which is even admitted by Opposite Party, that Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 - The Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., is converted into Respondent/Opposite Party No.3 - The Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit. As such, Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 is no more in existence and as such cannot be a party. Complainant may consider about this. (6) For the reasons stated above, we hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained and pass the following order: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 09/11/2009 is set aside. (iii) Consumer Complaint No.29/2008 is remitted back to the Forum below in the light of the observations made above. (iv) Forum below shall proceed after giving opportunity to both the sides to hear on admission, which is not at all admitted earlier and if admitted, then settle the dispute according to law. (v) Both parties shall appear before the Forum below on 29/11/2010. | 
