The principles of limitation apply to complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a cause of action that is barred by limitation in a civil court cannot be pursued before consumer forums.

( 1 ) THE complaint filed by the present Appellant-Mrs. R. D. Chinoy before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adhra Pradesh at Hyderabad against the present Respondent, Central Bank of India, R. P. Road Branch, Secunderbad (for short the Bank) was dismissed by the State Commission on 6th April, 1991. Feeling aggrieved by that order Mrs. Chinoy has filed this appeal.

( 2 ) IN her complaint which was originally filed before the District Forum, Hyderabad Mrs. Chinoy had alleged that the balance outstanding in her overdraft account with the Bank on 27th October, 1979 was only Rs. 14,131. 57 but the Bank had sold her whole lot of shares of about 30 companies which were pledged by her with the Bank. The Bank credited her overdraft account with a sum of Rs. 36,000. 00 only as sale proceeds of the shares. There was no necessity to sell the shares of all the 30 companies for liquidating the outstandings as on the date of salethe debit balance on that date could have been liquidated by sale of shares of few companies only and. thereby the Bank would have saved the remaining securities. The Bank has thus failed to act prudently while handling the shares/securities of its customers and has thus put her to heavy loss by sale of all her shares, of different companies. Further on verification of prevailing market rates from the list of Stock Exchange it was dear that the shares would have fetched more than Rs. 60,000. 00 in the open market. On account of the fraudulent and deceitful methods of the Bank officials only a sum of Rs. 36,000. 00 was credited by way of sale proceeds. On this account also she has been put to a loss of more than Rs. 20,000. 00. This resultant loss also occurred due to the imprudent action and deceitful means adopted by the staff of the Bank.

( 3 ) IT was also mentioned in the complaint that on her complaint the Metropolitan Magistrate. Secunderabad had convicted (Mr. J. K. Digaria, who was arrayed as accused No. 2 in the criminal case and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one year and also to pay Rs. 2,000. 00 as fine. Mr. Digaria was the Sub-Accountant of the Bank at whose instance that fraudulent transaction had taken place. The conviction or otherwise of the delinquent officials of the Branch would not be a consolation for the monetary losses suffered by the customer. In spite of persuasion for over a decade and in spite of above conviction by the Court, the Bank was trying to shield the delinquent officials to absolve themselves indirectly to evade their responsibility to compensate the customer. According to her she has suffered monetary losses due to the negligent, imprudent and fraudulent actions of Cheating by the officials of the Bank while handling her pledged securities.

( 4 ) AS in the original complaint the complainant, Mrs. Chinoy had not quantified her claim, the District Forum asked her to quantify the damages. She claimed Rs. 3,20,000. 00 as damages etc. together with interest from the date of complaint till the date of final payment. This amount was arrived at by her by stating that if her shares worth Rs. 14,131. 57 were removed (i. e. sold) from the bunch of shares, the balance number of shares could have been retained and today the market value of those remaining shares would be approximately Rs. 1,20,000. 00 excluding bonus shares and interest. According to her the bonus shares and other benefits received during the last eleven years would come to a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00. Rs. 1,00,000. 00 was claimed for the mental torture, agony and other hardship and incidental charges like correspondence, xerox copies, transport, trips Bombay to meet the Chairman of the Bank.

( 5 ) AS the claim of the complainant exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, it transferred the case to the State Commission.

( 6 ) THE respondent Bank filed its counter version averring that the complainant was availing the overdraft facility from the Bank during 1979. She