A complaint regarding consumer issues must be filed within the limitation period of two years as prescribed under S.24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 25.2.2020 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram ('the State Commission') in FA No. 48 of 2017.

2. The case of the Petitioner / Complainant is that he joined a recurring deposit on 15.12.1999 with the Respondent / Opposite Party, wherein, he remitted a sum of Rs.450 per month for 120 months. He was promised 13% per annum interest and the maturity amount to be paid on 15.12.2009 was Rs.1,10,094. However, he got only Rs.1,00,851 from the Respondent and Rs.9,243 was reduced due to reduction in the rate of interest from 13% to 11.5%. According to the Opposite Party, reduction in the rate of interest was as per the decision taken in the General Body meeting of the Society held on 26.6.2008. The Petitioner, however, stated that reduction of rate of interest was not included as an item in the agenda and on knowing that the rate of interest on his fixed deposit was reduced, he objected to it. As this amounted to unfair trade practice, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum with the following prayer:
* To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.9,243 being the difference in the maturity amount caused by the reduction of rate of interest from agreed 13% to 11.5%;
* To direct the Respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the above said amount, i.e., Rs.9,243 from 26.12.2009, the date of maturity of the deposit till the date of realisation;
* To direct the Opposite Party to pay the Petitioner an amount of Rs.5,000 as compensation for the physical and mental agony caused to the Petitioner;
* To pass such other reliefs which may be deemed just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case;
* To allow the cost of this case.

3. The Opposite Party contested the case contending that the Complaint was not maintainable. The cause of action arose on 26.12.2009 when the maturity amount was paid and the Complaint was filed on 24.7.2014. It was, therefore, barred by limitation. On merit it was stated that the rate of interest for cash credit loan was reduced as per the norms of NABARD and RBI, though the rate of interest for recurring deposit remained the same. The Respondent sustained heavy loss and therefore, the general body of the Society decided to reduce the rate of interest to 11.5% per annum. This decision was for the welfare of the Society and its members and though the Complainant was aware of this decision, he did not take any objection till his retirement. Since Rs.1,10,086 had been paid to the Complainant, there was no deficiency in service on the their part. The Opposite Party, therefore, sought dismissal of the Complaint.

4. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint on the ground of limitation. The State Commission heard both the parties and after perusing the record, observed that the District Forum had correctly found that the Complaint was barred by limitation. The Appeal was devoid of merit and therefore dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the record.

6. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was a member of a Society and he took are curring deposit and remitted a sum of Rs.450 every month for 120 months. As the Society was suffering loss they reduced the rate of interest from 13% per annum to 11.5% per annum and on maturity of deposit on 15.12.2009, the Opposite Party paid the Petitioner Rs.1,00,851, instead of Rs.1,10,094, thus reducing the amount by Rs.9,243. The maturity date of the recurring deposit was 15.12.2009, whereas the Complaint was filed before the District Forum on 15.4.2014. There was thus, a delay