JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            In this revision petition, the petitioner complainant has taken exception to the order of the State Commission West Bengal dated 25.11.2016 in First Appeal No. A/496/2016 filed against the order of the District Forum Kolkata I (North) in Complaint Case No.CC/07/372.

2.         Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum, Unit I, Kolkata alleging that he had Saving account no.411010100001496 in the respondent bank.  The petitioner also had fixed deposit account in the said bank.  It is the case of the petitioner that he was assured by the respondent bank that his saving account would be linked  with his other deposits and no cheque  issued by him would be dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the saving bank account provided there was sufficient amount in his other accounts including the FD account.  It is alleged in the complaint that one cheque dated 10.08.2007 for Rs.1,24,850/- issued by the petitioner was dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the saving bank account despite of the fact that there was much more amount to the credit of the petitioner in his fixed / term deposit.   Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation to the sum of Rs.19.00 lakhs for loss of reputation and harassment. 

3.         The complaint was resisted by the opposite party.  According to the opposite party, the petitioner complainant opened saving bank account under the Priority Banking Scheme wherein the petitioner was required to maintain minimum average quarterly balance in the saving account to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh and he was supposed to issue cheque after keeping sufficient balance in the account.  In any case the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and that shortfall was duly informed to the individual but he did not pay any heed to the request of the relationship manager.

4.         The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence dismissed the complaint.  Being  aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal in the State Commission West Bengal.  The appeal, however, was filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 30 days with delay of 60 days.  An application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner which came to be dismissed vide impugned order resulting in dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation.  This has led to the filing of the revision petition.

5.         Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission has failed to appreciate that delay in filing of the appeal was properly explained and also that the petitioner had a very good case in appeal before the State Commission as his cheque was dishonoured despite there being sufficient funds in his various accounts with the opposite party. 

6.         We do not find merit in the above contention.  So far as merits of the case is concerned, it is sufficient to note that admittedly, there were insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner for honouring his cheque for Rs.1,24,850/- and that the petitioner had claimed Rs.19.00 lakhs as compensation for dishonour of his cheque without making any foundation for such an exorbitant claim for compensation, which is highly disproportionate to the value of the cheque.

7.         Coming to the merits of the revision petition. The State Commission while dismissing the application for condonation of delay and as a consequence the appeal preferred by the petitioner has observed as under:

“The point for consideration is whether the Appellant has explained the cause of delay satisfactorily so that such delay may be condoned.

            It transpires from the very petition of the condonation of delay that the Appellant has avoided giving the explanation as to why he failed to take note of the orders of the Ld.Forum below in regard to the pronouncement of the final order.  What prevented him from gathering knowledge about passing of the order has not been properly mentioned.  Again, his absence from Kolkata  has been cited as the cause of delay in meeting his Ld. Advocate which is nothing but a lame excuse.  In a word, the causes cited for delay in filing the appeal are not at all sufficient.  Hence, the petition for condonation of delay cannot be allowed.  As a result, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation in terms of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.  There shall be no order as to cost.”

8.         We do not find any fault with the above observation of the State Commission which led to dismissal of application for condonation of delay.  No jurisdictional error in the impugned order has been pointed out which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.