S.K.M. Lodha, President - Against the order dated 28.5.1991 of the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 523/90, the complaint has filed this appeal. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that the claim made by the complainant is a state claim and has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. It, therefore, dismissed the complaint. As the point of limitation is involved, we do not consider it necessary to give a detailed resume of the facts. Suffice it to state that the complainant filed a complaint for refund of Rs. 1,048.74 with interest @ 1 % per month and also for compensation amounting to Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant was allotted House No. 1/1352 in Malviya Nagar in pursuance of the order dated 22.6.1981. According to the complainant he did not receive that order for the allotment. However, he came to know about it on 1.10.1981 wherein he was asked to deposit Rs. 7,786/- within one month form the date of the issuance of the allotment letter. As the amount was not deposited in time he was asked to pay Rs. 1.048.74 as penalty which was deposited. He has filed the complaint for the refund of the aforesaid amount together with interest and compensation. The opposite party resisted the complaint and stated that the allotment letter was sent at the address given by the complainant. It was submitted that the amount was not deposited within the time. In pursuance of that penalty of Rs. 1.048.74 was recovered. A plea was taken that the claim made in the complaint was barred by time. As the amount was deposited on 13.11.1981 and claim for the refund of the amount having been presented after about eight years, it was barred by time. It may be stated that the complaint was filed before the District Forum. The complaint is dated 15.5.1990. which was registered by the District Forum on 15.5.1990. The complainant is said to have deposited the amount in pursuance of the order of the opposite party in respect of allotment of the house. Letter dated 13.11.1981 was sent after adding the amount of penalty. The complainant deposited the amount on 13.11.1981. It has been alleged by the complainant that he wrote several letters to the opposite parties for the refund of the amount and as the amount was not refund. the claim as filed by the complainant is within limitation. It is also the case of complainant that the letters which were sent by him were not replied. In para 9 of the memo of appeal the complainant has referred letters from 3.10.1981 to 1.9.1988 which he had sent by post for the refund of the amount but they were not replied. Thereafter, registered notice was sent on 18.9.1989 and as not reply was given, the complainant had filed the complaint as stated above and that it is within limitation. No document has been placed on record on behalf of the complainant to show that the opposite party ever admitted the liability of refunding the amount of Rs. 1,048.74 which was deposited by the complainant. Merely by writing letters one after other for a' long period of either years without response docs not extend limitation. If no suit could be filed for the refund of the amount in Civil Court, the claim made in the complaint cannot be entertained. The District Forum was right in holding that it was a stale claim and the claim of the complainant appellant has become barred by time. The finding of District Forum that the claim is barred by time is correct.

2. Apart from that, we may mention that the prayer for the refund of amount could not be granted to the complainant under section 14(1) of the Act. It is well settled that a Redressal Forum established under the Act can grant only those reliefs which arc mentioned in section 14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. The order dismissing the complaint being barred by time is, therefore, affirmed.

3. There is no force in this appeal. It consequently fails and it is hereby dismissed. The complainant-appellant shall pay Rs. 100/- as costs to the opposite