ORDER

Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, Presiding Member -One of the duties casts upon this Commission established under the Consumer Protection Act, is to approach the problem more gingerly and realistically whenever it is confronted with the question of time barred cases under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. The Consumer Court has to be empirical and practical in adjudicating this point. This Commission cannot waft aside the delay of 14 years as venial. Now the facts of this case deserve a look.

2. M/s. Matrumal Dhannalal Oil Mill, the complainant, is a partnership firm having its registered office situated at Hathras, U.P. The complainant was maintaining a current account No. 315 since the year 1995-96 with the State Bank of India, Mandi Samiti, Hathras, U.P., opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 2 is the main Branch of State Bank of India at Hathras, U.P. The State Bank of India's head office is situated at State Bank Bhawan, Mumbai, which is arrayed as opposite party No. 1.

3. In the year 2000, the complainant was planning to establish its Depot at Patna (Bihar). The complainant received a telephonic call from one Mr. Vijay Prasad who described himself as proprietor of