PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the separate orders dated 18.05.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, he State Commission in S.C. Case No. SC/4/O/2005 and S.C. Case No. SC/5/O/2005 Kesoram Industries Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd. by which, complaints were dismissed. As similar point arises in both the appeals, both the appeals are decided by common order. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that Complainant/appellant filed separate complaints before the learned State Commission for seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- towards loss/ damage suffered by the complainant on account of adoption of unfair practice by the OPs-respondents in making certain debit entries in the credit accounts of the complainant and also alleged deficiency in service in not supplying relevant documents/statements/unpaid overdue bills in respect of which, debit entries were made by the OPs. OP/respondents resisted complaints and submitted that neither the remittance nor the overdue bills were received from upcountry branch/other banks and as per terms of agreement and relevant Regulations, the Banks were justified in making debit entries in the cash credit accounts of the complainant to the extent the remittances were not received. OPs denied any deficiency as well as unfair practice and submitted that complaints are time barred and not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission dismissed both the complaints by the order dated 28.11.2008 against which, appeals were filed by the complainant and this Commission vide order dated 10.11.2012 allowed appeals and matters were remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding afresh in the light of directions. Learned State Commission vide separate impugned orders again dismissed complaint against which, these appeals have been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused record. 4. Appellant along with appeal has filed application for condonation of delay and submitted that delay of 77-78 days in filing appeal may be condoned, which occurred on account of consultation with the Advocate and authorized representative of the appellant was busy in Board meeting and mandatory audit, etc. Respondent in reply submitted that no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning delay; hence, application may be dismissed. 5. Appellant has filed affidavit in support of application and submitted that Counsel for the appellant fell ill and due to fracture in his right leg could not draft pleadings for a consideration time. Appellant has given date-wise explanation for condonation of delay. It appears that delay occurred on account of consultation with the Advocate and authorized representative of the appellant was busy in mandatory audit as well as in Board meeting. As the matters are to be remanded back to the learned State Commission as the State Commission has not disposed the complaints in the light of this Commission order dated 10.11.2010 and has not considered objections of respondents regarding maintainability of complaints and limitation, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing appeal subject to cost. Hence, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay stands condoned subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- in each appeal with the Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 4 weeks, failing which, appeals shall stand dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. On merits, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission has not decided complaints in the light of directions given by this Commission; hence, appeals be allowed and matters be remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide the complaints in accordance with the directions. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that appeals may be dismissed and if the matters are to be remanded back, specific directions be also given to the Learned State Commission to decide the issue of limitation and maintainability of the complaints as per the objections of the respondents. 7. This Commission while deciding both the appeals by order dated 10.11.2010 observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order as under: . Having given our thoughtful consideration to the above contentions, we are of the view that the complaints have not received the kind of consideration which it deserved at the hands of State Commission. It would appear that the State Commission has not fully adverted to the pleadings of the opposite parties which according to the complainant contain certain admissions of factual position and has focused its entire attention to non-compliance of certain formalities and based on the same has non-suited the complainant. 10. In these circumstances, we consider it a fit case where the complaints should be remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunities to the parties to make their submissions on all possible aspects involved in the matter. If the State Commission considers it necessary that the complainant should answer the questionnaire served by the opposite parties, the complainants may be allowed one opportunity to do that 8. Perusal of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission has not fully adverted to the pleadings of the parties and has not considered objections of respondents regarding limitation and maintainability of the complaints and has simply referred judgments submitted by the respondents. Learned State Commission ought to have decided complaints as per the directions given by this Commission and also should have decided the question of limitation and maintainability of the complaints as well as whether the complaints were maintainable as transactions were regarding cash credit facility between the parties. 9. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the appeals and remand the matters back to the learned State Commission to decide the complaints afresh in the light of directions given by this Commission vide order dated 10.11.2010. 10. Consequently, appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and impugned order dated18.05.2012 passed by the State Commission, in S.C. Case No. SC/4/O/2005 and S.C. Case No. SC/5/O/2005 Kesoram Industries Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd. are set aside and matters are remanded back to the learned State Commission in the light of observations made by this Commission in the order dated 10.11.2010 and also consider the question of limitation and maintainability of the complaints. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 3.7.2014.