1.       None appears for R-1 who remains unserved, the learned counsels appearing for R-2 and 3 state that they do not represent R-1.

2.       The appeal has been filed challenging the order of the State Commission vide which his complaint has been dismissed on account of limitation having been filed beyond the prescribed period of two years from the date when cause of action arose. It is not in dispute from both the sides that the complaint in question was filed before the State Commission on 21.08.2013, however para 12 of the State Commission records that the complaint was perhaps filed on 04.08.2009 for a cause of action that arose in February 2007, hence it is time barred. Para 12 of the State Commission order is reproduced below:

“12. Secondly, we are satisfied with the contention raised by the OPs to the effect that the complaint, having been filed on 04.08.2009 for a cause of action arose in February 2007, is time barred. No prayer has been filed praying for Condonation of delay.”

3.       Learned counsel representing OP-2 and 3 fairly concedes that this para contains wrong facts and perhaps are attributable to typo errors. They have drawn our attention to para 10 of this order which states that complaint has been filed on 21.08.2013 however learned counsels appearing for OP- 2 and 3 fairly concede that this para does not contain the findings of State Commission with regard to date when cause of action arose rather it records submissions of the OPs. They also fairly agree that the order of the State Commission nowhere records its findings on the date when cause of action arose and the date of filing the complaint, which is not in dispute i.e. 21.08.2013. In the absence of a categorical finding by the State Commission on the date when cause of action arose, the State Commission could not have come to a finding of the complaint being time barred. Further the observations of the State Commission in para 13 that in the absence of an application praying for condonation of delay, we have no grounds or reasons for condoning the delay, it is to be noted that in accordance with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Sesh Nath Singh Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Coop. Bank Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 313” filing of the Application for seeking condonation of delay is not mandatory. A careful consideration of the orders of the State Commission shows that no findings have been recorded by the State Commission with respect to date when the cause of action arose, rather para 12 of its order wrongly records that they are satisfied with the contentions raised by the OPs with effect that the complaint having been filed on 04.08.2009 for a cause of action arose in February, 2007 is time barred and no prayer has been filed praying for condonation of delay. Hence, we are of the considered view that prima facie orders of the State Commission suffers from a material irregularity and cannot be sustained. Hence, order of the State Commission is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission for fresh disposal on merits, including maintainability on account of limitation, after hearing both sides. Appellant herein will have a liberty to file an application for seeking condonation of delay if they so desire before the State Commission. Both sides to appear before the State Commission on 16.12.2024.