MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, he State Commission in Complaint No. C-11/34 Shri B.P. Mathew Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. by which complaint was dismissed being not maintainable at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant-complainant filed complaint before the State Commission and alleged that respondent no. 1 allowed an impersonator to open an account bearing no. 131010100234955 in the name of the complainant without his knowledge or consent. The complainant filed criminal complaint pertaining to said fabricated account. It was further alleged that respondent no.4 in connivance with the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 opened fictitious bank account relating to other transactions in respect of which criminal proceedings are also pending. On account of deficiency, the appellant claimed Rs.90,00,000/- along with interest and costs, etc. Learned State Commission dismissed the complaint at admission stage on the ground that act of impersonator constituted a criminal offence and the matter was pending before the criminal court and there was no deficiency in service. 4. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 103 days. Appellant moved an application for condonation of delay along with appeal in which it was mentioned that the appellant received copy of judgement of the State Commission on 18.5.2011 and handed it over to the clerk of his Advocate and went to his native village to celebrate Id festival and after coming back from there failed to trace the copy of the order, so, delay was caused in filing the appeal. Later on, he moved another application for condonation of delay on 26.06.2012 in which it was alleged that appellant received copy of the judgment of the State Commission on 23.5.2011 and tried to contact his counsel for filling appeal before the National Commission but his counsel had already left Delhi due to summer vacations in the Supreme Court which commenced from 15.5.2011. It was further alleged that his counsel returned back on 3.7.2011 but the appellant could meet him only in the third week of August, 2011, as he could not get time from his hectic worksite. It was further alleged that some time was spent in getting the certified copy of the criminal proceedings. 5. Perusal of both applications reveals that there are many contradictions in the facts. In first application dated 28.9.2011, appellant mentioned that he received copy of the order on 18.5.2011 whereas in subsequent application he mentioned that he received copy of the order on 23.5.2011. In earlier application he mentioned that he gave copy of the judgement to the clerk of the Advocate and went to his native village for celebrating Id whereas in subsequent application he mentioned that he tried to contact his counsel but he could not contact as his counsel had gone out of Delhi due to summer vacations in the Supreme Court and he could contact him only in the third week of August, 2011. In the first application he mentioned that copy of the order was misplaced in the office of the Advocate but there is no such averment in the subsequent application whereas in a subsequent application he mentioned that his counsel came only on 3.7.2011 from outside and he contacted him in the third week of August, 2011 which fact do not find place in earlier application. Thus, there are clear cut contradictions in earlier and subsequent application for condonation of delay and apparently there is no reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay and this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage being barred by limitation. 6. As far merits of the case are concerned, the learned State Commission has rightly observed that the matter is primarily criminal in character and proceedings are pending in a criminal court and claim of damages on account of opening an account by an impersonator does not fall within the jurisdiction of consumer forum. 7. Consequently, the appeal being time barred is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.