PER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The brief facts are that, Complainant – Pappu Mangaratnam, who is petitioner (in R.P. No.29/2012) and respondent (in R.P. No.821/2012) had filed a Consumer Complaint No. 720/2004, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘District Forum’) on the allegations that on 01.04.2001 she had deposited a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- with the Opposite Parties/Respondents (in R.P. No.29/2012) and Petitioners (in R.P. No.921/2012) for a period of 12 months which was to be repaid with interest @ 24% p.a. on 31.03.2002.  It is further alleged that though the maturity period was over but the opposite parties did not make any payment in spite of several demands made by her.  Thereupon, the complainant issued legal notice dated 20.05.2004.

2.       The opposite parties contested the claim of the complainant and had taken a specific plea that the Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing Sl. No. 020, dated 1.4.01 was issued consequent on Kum. P. Sujatha, daughter of the complainant herein and late P. Suryanarayana, on her retiring as partner, after having settled all the accounts and a figure of Rs.3,45,000/- was arrived at in full and final settlement of the claim due under the Partnership by name, M/s.Sri Saisha Finance & Chits.  Late Suryanarayana had dealing with the firm in the name of her daughter Sujatha.  There was never any demand for payment of the same by the complainant.  A suitable reply notice was given to the Legal notice dated 20.05.2004.  The complaint is barred by time as the cause of action has arisen, immediately after maturity date and the legal notice was admittedly issued after period of limitation.  In discharge of the FDR, the complainant was paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by cash on 29.12.2001, another Rs.1,00,000/- by cash on 23.1.2002 under proper receipts of the even date and another sum of Rs.1,70,000/- by way of cheque dated 6.3.2002 in the name of the complainant on Cooperative Bank Limited, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam towards full and final settlement, including an amount of Rs.25,000/- interest accrued on the FDR.  Though promised to return the FDR, it was not returned.  The present complaint is filed only to harass the Opposite Parties.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.       District Forum vide order dated 10.06.2005, disposed of the complaint with direction that the complainant can have recourse through the competent civil court for adjudication, since it involved complicated issues.

4.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainant filed (First Appeal No.8/2008) before Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘State Commission’) which vide its order dated 21.09.2010, remanded the matter to the District Forum for enquiry and disposal of the complaint.

5.       After remand, the District Forum vide order dated 25.03.2011, dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation as well as on merits.

6.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainant filed (First Appeal No.349/2011) before the State Commission.  The State Commission vide the impugned order dated 08.11.2011, partly allowed the appeal and directed the opposite parties to pa