R.N. Mittal, President - This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 2nd September, 1993. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant was delivered possession of the flat on 12th April, 1989. He filed a complaint in September, 1992, claiming interest from the opposite party. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum by observing that it was a stale claim. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to this Commission.

2. The only question that arises for determination is, whether complainant could file a complaint for recovery of interest after a period of more than 3 years from the date of taking possession of the plot. The matter is not Resintegra. It has been settled by the National Commission in R.D. Chinoy v. Central Bank of India, Secunderabad1, that if a cause of action cannot be agitated in(f Civil Court, by reasons of its having become time barred by limitation, it cannot be allowed to be made a ground for getting relief before the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. After the expiry of period of limitation, rights and obligations of the parties to a dispute get settled. It would be against principles of justice to unsettle such matters. It was further observed that the State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the claim for damages made by the complainant under the Act for the alleged deficiency in ‘service’ rendered by the bank was a stale. We are bound by the said observations.

3. Dr. Umesh Chander Kansra has referred to the decision of the Maharashtra State Commission in Frannie Fitter v. State Bank of India & Another, that case is however, distinguishable. In that case there were allegations of fraud. Therefore, the observation in that case will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.