P.K. Shamsuddin, President - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Thrissur, in O.P. No. 605/94. The complainant is the appellant.

2. The Opposite parties are the Managing Partner and Partners of Matha Finance, Koratty, a Firm registered under the Partnership Act. The complainant deposited his retirement benefits of Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite party Firm and documents were also issued evidencing the deposit. The complainant received interest till 1987 and thereafter the Opposite Party did not pay the interest to the complainant. The Opposite Party told the complainant that interest and principal would be returned to him immediately. However the amount was not paid. From January, 1992' onwards the complainant has been requesting the opposite parties to pay the money but the money was not returned. On these allegations the complaint was filed seeking payment of the deposit amount together with interest:

3. The opposite party filed version contending the complaint is barred by limitation and that there are altogether 18 partners and without making them on the party array the complaint is not maintainable.

4. The District Forum took the view that what is produced is only a Promissory Note and not a deposit receipt. In that view the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the documents Exts. A1 to A3 are receipts for deposit and not really promissory notes, and also invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Janaki Devi & another v. M/s. Juggilal Kamalapat, where the Supreme Court held that in considering the nature of a transaction and finding out whether the transaction is a deposit of money or Promissory Note one has to look into surrounding circumstances, relationship of parties, character of transaction and the manner in which parties treated the transaction as a deposit of money or loan.

7. We find considerable force in the contention raised by learned counsel. The complainant was an employee of the Madurai Coats and the parties never intended to create a debtor creditor relationship and though documents purported to be promissory notes really they are only deposit receipts. We find no stamps are affixed on the receipts as required by Artic~ 49(A) of the Indian Stampts Act. We had occasion to consider the construction of similar documents in Appeal No. 410/95 and connected cases and after examining all aspects we held that they are receipts for deposits and not promissory notes.

8. Learned counsel however contended that even if documents are construed as receipts for deposits the complaint is barred by limitation. He submitted that Section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act prescribes a period of 2 years from the date of cause of action for filing the complaint and in the instant case even according to the complainant demand was made in January, 1992. Section 24(a) was introduced only by Act 50 of 1993 which came into force on 16-6-1993. Before that the complainant had 3 years period as per the provisions of the Limitation Act and the complainant could have filed the complaint before' January 1995. The complaint was filed in 1994. There is no provision in the Act regarding the period of limitation where under the Limitation Act larger period is available and tinder Section 24(A) which was introduced by Act 50 of 1993 lesser period is prescribed and the prescribed period under the Act was over on the date when the provision came into force. In the circumstances we are unable to say really the complaint is barred by limitation. However even assuming that there is bar of limitation we find sufficient reason in the instant case to exercise our discretion under Sub-Section(2) of 24A and to condone the delay, if any, in filing the complaint.

9. Another contention raised is that all the partners are not impleaded and therefore the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties. As par