IMPORTANT POINT
Abnormal delay of 1 year and 8 months in filing appeal cannot be condoned.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 4.9.2015 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent, which is a cooperative bank in Maharashtra, against the appellant was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,19,000/- to the complainant along with interest and cost quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Since there is a delay of 1 year and 8 months in filing the appeal, the IA No.9561 of 2017 seeking condonation of the said delay has been filed. The application seeking condonation of delay, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

“4. That it is herein respectfully stated that the instant matter was filed in 2002. The advocate who handled the matter initially did not pursue the matter. The file with the appellant bank was misplaced and the incumbent manager had no knowledge of the said matter. It was called out for hearing in 2015. A new advocate was engaged. The matter was decreed on 4.9.2015. The incumbent branch manager was facing several charges hence he did not report the matter to higher authorities. The incumbent manager now stands suspended from service.

5. That on 28th April 2016 the new manager joined. A notice was received from the appellant after which he made several attempts to settle the matter amicably. Meanwhile, the file was searched and finally found in March 2017. Since, the matter was proposed to be settled amicably the appellant bank did not initiate any action in good faith.

6. That it was after the execution petition was received, the appellant bank realized that no settlement could be reached between the appellant bank and the complainant hence the regional office of the appellant bank contacted the office in Delhi and thereon they contacted an advocate, documents were sent and it thus took some time to file the appeal.

7. That it is herein respectfully submitted that the delay caused was inadvertent in the above stated circumstances. It was neither intentional nor deliberate.”

2. As noted earlier, the impugned order came to be passed by the State Commission on 4.9.2015. This is not the case of the appellant that a copy of the aforesaid order was not received by it from the State Commission. The case of the appellant is that the concerned Branch Manager at the relevant time, namely, Mr. Ramesh Nagarajan did not take any action on the impugned order passed by the State Commission and did not bring the said order to the notice of his superiors for the purpose of filing an appeal before this Commission. The appellant has today filed an affidavit of Krishna Vishwanatha Kalakkanchery, the Branch Manager who succeeded Mr. Ramesh Nagarajan on 28.4.2016. In his affidavit, he has admitted having received a notice from the complainant on 28.5.2016. The aforesaid notice/letter which bears the date 17.5.2016, refers to two previous letters of the complainant, one dated 21.9.2015 and the other dated 18.11.2015. The said letter expressly refers to the order passed by the State Commission in Complaint No. CC/02/352 dated 4.9.2015 though the order is termed as an interim order. It would thus be seen that details of the consumer complaint in which the order had been passed by the State Commission on 4.9.2015 became available to Mr. Krishna Vishwanatha Kalakkanchery, when he received the aforesaid letter in May, 2016. Since the particulars of the consumer complaint were available in the letter, the appellant ought to have immediately inspected the record of the consumer complaint available with the State Commission and obtained not only the copy of the order passed by it but also the copies of the entire record of the consumer complaint. Had that been done, it would have been possible for the appellant to scrutinize the impugned order and take appropriate decision on the question of filing an appeal before this Commission soon after May, 2016. However, the bank officers were clearly negligent in performance of their duty since instea