IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer forum under an obligation not to admit consumer complaint, unless it is filed within two years form date on which cause of action arisen.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh in FA No. 570 of 2013 arising out of the order of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad dated 14.03.2013 in CC No. 1048 of 2013.

2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Hyderabad alleging that he worked with erstwhile Global Trust Bank Limited since 17.07.1994. The erstwhile Global Trust Bank amalgamated with the petitioner bank in August 2004. After the amalgamation, the complainant became an employee of the petitioner bank and continued to function as Head-Country Operational Excellence Centre, Hyderabad. The complainant submitted his resignation with three months notice on 26.03.2005 and worked till 27.06.2005 till the expiry of period of notice. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party accepted the resignation and relieved the complainant of his dues on 27.06.2005 with a promise to settle the Provident Fund, Gratuity and leave encashment. The dues, however, were not settled despite of several representation and ultimately in September 2009., the opposite party gave the respondent cheques for his Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment which was credited in the complainant’s account on 15.09.2009. It is alleged by the complainant that petitioner opposite party has failed to pay interest for the delay in payment of his dues, which amounts to deficiency in service.

3. The petitioner opposite party in its written statement took the preliminary objection that in view of the specific provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, the consumer complaint is not maintainable. It was also pleaded that consumer complaint is barred by limitation. On merits, the petitioner denied the allegations made in the complaint and alleged that although the complainant has submitted his resignation on 27.06.2005, his resignation was not accepted because the respondent complainant had committed several irregularities in sanction of loans to the customers and CBI inquiry was pending against him. It was pleaded that resignation of the complainant was accepted in September 2009 and he was relieved retrospectively w.e.f 27.06.2005 vide letter dated 08.09.2009. It was further pleaded that dues of the complainant were paid on 10.09.2009 alongwith interest calculated till March 2006.

4. Learned District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner opposite party to pay interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs.6,69,057/- w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 10.09.2009 and further interest @ 9% from 11.09.2009 till date of realisation.

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal. The State Commission however concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

6. Learned Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the foras below are not sustainable for the reason that both the foras below have ignored the material evidence and failed to return a finding on the plea of limitation specifically taken by the petitioner opposite party. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to copy of the receipt dated 10.09.2009 executed by the respondent complainants and contended that once the complainant had received the amount in full and final settlement of his dues, he was not entitled to reagitate the matter by filing a consumer complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contented that even if it is assumed that complainant could have reagitated the matter, then also, cause of action for raising a consumer dispute for interest on the delayed payment occurred on 10.09.2009 and in view of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the respondent complainant should have filed the consumer complaint within two years i.e. 10.09