This revision petition is directed against concurrent findings rendered by the District Forum Alappuzha and the State Commission Kerala. There is a delay of 160 days in filing of the instant revision petition. The findings of the State Commission in appeal no. 118 / 2006 in complaint case no. 258 / 2002 are concurrent. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that much time was consumed in sending of the document to the concerned regional office of the petitioner bank and to get approval for filing of the revision petition. He would, further submit that when the documents were received by him, he prepared the draft and send it to the petitioner bank for approval and there was consumption of time due to such exchange of communication. He, therefore, submits that the delay is unintentional and deserves to be condoned. 3. We find that the reasons for the delay are inadequate and improper. The time taken in the internal communication between bank and its concerned sections of the regional office or that between counsel and the Bank could not give sufficient reason for condonation of delay of 160 days. The delay is not properly explained. The explanation that such delay was on account of exchange of communication between Bank and the Regional Office is also dissatisfactory. We are of the opinion that the delay cannot be condoned on the basis of the explanations put forth in the application. 4. So far as the revision petition is concerned, we find that the petitioner had filed suit (OS 91 / 86) for recovery of the amount. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 26.03.93. The bank also preferred an appeal. The High Court of Kerala dismissed that appeal on 25.03.2004. It was thereafter that the complaint was filed by the respondent and came to be allowed as per the impugned order of the District Forum. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed before the District Forum was barred by limitation. We do not agree. The respondent had continuous cause of action to make such complaint. The service provided by the petitioner bank came under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the amended provision w.e.f. 15.03.2003 as per section 2(O) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is but natural that till the date of amendment, the respondent could not have approached the consumer forum against the petitioner bank. The respondent approached the consumer forum within a period of two years after the dismissal of the suit and the appeal preferred by the petitioner finally as per the judgement of the High court of Kerala which was rendered on 25.03.2004. It is difficult to countenance, therefore, that the complaint was barred by limitation. The District Forum directed refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner alongwith the due interest. We do not find any perversity in the findings of the fora below. 6. In the result, the delay application as well as the revision petition are dismissed. No costs.