PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 22 / 03 whereby the State Commission condoned the delay in filing of the complaint.  The impugned order is reproduced thus:

“Heard on application for condonation of delay. Reason given in the application of condonation for delay seems sufficient. Therefore Delay is condone.

Matter admitted for hearing. Counsel for opposite party is present; there is no need to issue notice. File is put up for reply on 15.07.2013”.

2.         Shri Satish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason it is a non speaking order, bereft of any details and also because the order was passed in undue haste without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is contended that State Commission has committed a serious illegality by condoning the delay without any sufficient cause.

3.         We have considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.  On perusal of the impugned order, we find that this order was passed by the State Commission in presence of counsel for the complainant  / respondent as also the petitioner.  The order records that arguments on application for condonation of delay were heard.  Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order was passed without hearing the parties.  It is true that the order passed by the State Commission is cryptic and bereft of details but the fact remains that the reason for delay in filing of complaint was explained in the application for condonation of delay.  Copy of the application for condonation of delay is annexed to the revision petition, wherein the respondent / complainant has explained that petitioner bank allowed illegal withdrawl of 11,70,520/- from his NRI Account on 04.10.2010.    It is alleged in the application that on coming to know about the illegal withdrawl, the complainant pursued the matter with the officers of the bank during the period w.e.f. 01.12.2010 to 04.12.2011.When the opposite party / bank failed to give any relief to the complainant, the complainant filed a complaint with the Bank’s Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur on 23.03.2011.  The Bank’s Ombudsman passed an award in favour of the complainant on 07.09.2011.  The petitioner not being satisfied with the award, preferred an Appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was accepted on 19.03.2012 whereby the award was set aside but the complainant was given right to agitate his grievance before the competent redressal agency.  Thereafter, the complainant / respondent filed this complaint.  From the aforesaid, it is obvious that complainant was all through vigilantly pursing his remedy.  Therefore, he cannot be faulted with any negligence or laxity.    In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission condoning the delay in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent for the unnecessary delay caused.