1. This Appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 18.04.2018 in CCIA No.77/2017 in CC (SR) 3335/2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, AR whereby the Complaint filed by the Appellant was dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant was having an account with the OP Bank. The Complainant came to know that certain illegal withdrawals have been made from his bank account. The Complainant sought for withdraw certain amount from his account and the same was refused and he was informed by the OP Bank that the Account was frozen on account of a Legal Notice during August 2013. Thereafter, he sought details from the OP Bank and the same was replied by the OP Bank on 29.09.2014 without any details. Thereafter, he filed a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman, which was dismissed on 12.11.2014. Then he filed the above Consumer Complaint before the State Commission along with an Application for condonation of delay. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 18.04.2018 disallowed the Application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the Complaint as barred by time. Hence, the Complainant filed the present Appeal.

3. As per office report, the Appeal has been filed with a delay of 149 days. The explanation given for condonation of delay is that the Complainant/ Appellant has not received the free copy of the impugned order dated 18.04.2018. On coming to know about the same, he applied for a certified copy which was made available to the Appellant only on 25.09.2018. After receiving the certified copy, the Appeal was filed on 30.10.2018 with a delay of six days.

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the impugned order was passed in the open Court in the presence of the counsel for the Complainant. Therefore, there was no question of supply of free copy of the impugned order. The Appellant cannot wait for six months for receiving the free copy. He, therefore, sought the Appeal be dismissed on the grounds of delay.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on condonation of delay, we find no reason to disbelieve the Appellant that the free copy of the impugned order was made available to him on 25.09.2018. The respondent has not brought anything on record to the contrary. Therefore, considering the fact that the Appeal was filed on 30.10.2018, we condone the delay of six days and treat the Appeal to have been filed within time.

6. On merits of the Appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He asserted that the State Commission failed to consider the fact that the cause of action was continuing one and the State Commission wrongly reckoned the cause of action from 20.07.2013 on the basis of some letter placed on record by the Bank. The Complainant filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman which was decided on 12.11.2014 and the Complaint before the State Commission was filed in December, 2016 with a delay of 36 days and not 17 months as held by the State Commission. It was argued that the State Commission failed to appreciate the medical documents produced by the Appellant, in correct perspective. The State Commission wrongly held that the Complainant did not produce any treatment record from 27.7.2016 to 21.10.2016 whereas the Complainant has placed on record the certificate dated 21.10.2016 issued by the National Institute of Medical Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore. The State Commission also ignored the medical record from 19.01.2016 to 26.07.2016 and from 30.10.2016 to 18.12.2016. The learned counsel for the Complainant argued that the delay shall be determined from the date when the Complainant was informed of freezing of his Bank account in August, 2013 when he went to OP Bank to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.8,14,426. He sought the said delay be condoned by putting the Complainant to terms. He urged that technicalities in appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case wherein he is an NRI and has inherent difficulties in coming to India to progress the complaint.

He sought the matter to be viewed in a manner to provide him an opportunity for the complaint to be heard on merits. He asserted that the delay in filing the complaint was not intentional but bona fide and beyond the control of the Complainant. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. He sought that the matter be remanded to State Commission for disposal of the Complaint on merits.

7. The learned counsel for OP/Respondent argued that the Appellant/ Complainant himself admitted in the Complaint that in September, 2012 he found that an approximate amount of Rs.24 lakhs was missing. When the discrepancy was in the direct and personal knowledge of the Complainant in September, 2012, the limitation period would start from the date of the knowledge i.e. September, 2012 and the Complaint filed in December, 2016 was hopelessly barred by time. The complainant issued legal notice on 11.02.2013 after expiry of about four months for which no explanation whatsoever has been given. In the letter dated 20.07.2013 the Complainant specifically confirmed that no amount is missing from his saving bank account and requested the Branch Manager to close the legal notice dated 11.02.2013. The State Commission has rightly taken into consideration the said letter dated 20.07.2013 for the purpose of limitation. In support iof his arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Tulip Residency Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Vikrant Enterprises, 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 990; Laxman Dass Verma vs. NBCC-MHG JVNBCC Bhawan 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 916; Saraswati Durgaprasad Bhadouria & Ann Vs. Sea Princess Reality & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1046; and State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121.

8. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we find that as per State Commission the cause of action accrued on 20.07.2013 when the Complainant had sent a letter to the OP. From the record, we also find that the period of limitation has started on 20.07.2013 and the Complaint was filed on 19.12.2016. The Complainant has not been able to explain the delay very satisfactorily before the State Commission. However, we cannot lose sight of the vital fact that as per Complainant a huge amount of about Rs.24,00,000 was found missing from his saving bank account. In addition, he was an NRI at that time. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires consideration on merits. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brahmpal Vs. National Insurance Company, (2021) 6 SCC 512, held that in delay condonation matter liberal view is required to be taken in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.

9. Therefore, after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, including the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties, in order to do substantial justice between the parties, we allow the First Appeal No. 1947/2018, set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2018, condone the delay in filing the complaint before the State Commission and remand the matter to the State Commission. However, this is subject to cost of Rs.50,000 to be deposited by the Complainant with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission, within four weeks from today. The learned State Commission is requested to hear the Complaint on merit and decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

10. Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.10.2026.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. All pending Applications, if any are also disposed accordingly.