JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 14.8.2015 passed in Misc. Application No. MA/14/348 in A/14/819 whereby the said Commission refused to condone the delay of 451 days in filing the above-referred appeal bearing No.A/14/819.

2.      A  complaint was filed by the respondent Mr.Nirmal Laxmandas Jithvani against three officers of Canara Bank who were stated to be the Sr. Manager, Manager and Officers of the Ambernath East Branch of the said Bank in District Thane of Maharashtra. A perusal of the said complaint would show that the complainant had an account with the Ambernath East Branch of Canara Bank in which his salary used to be credited. His grievance was that four cheques, for an aggregate sum of Rs.2,90,000/-, were debited from his account though neither he had signed nor issued the said cheques. The complainant/respondent, therefore, sought payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,90,000/- along with compensation and cost. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum by directing the opposite parties in the complaint to pay a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant along with interest and compensation.

3.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the incumbent Sr. Manager, Manager and Officers of the Ambernath East Branch of Canara Bank preferred an appeal before the concerned State Commission. Since there was a delay in filing the application, they also preferred an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Vide order dated 17.4.2014, the State Commission dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the said officers of Canara Bank as barred by limitation. It was also held by the State Commission that the applicants before it  had no locus standi to file the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the appeal against the order of the District Forum since the order had been passed against certain officers of the Bank in their personal capacity.Thereupon the present petitioners preferred Appeal No.A/14/819 against the order of the District Forum and since there was a delay in filing the said appeal, M.A No.14/348 was filed seeking condonation of the said delay.

4.      Notice of the revision petition was sent to the complainant/respondent and a reply by post has been sent by him. We have considered the reply sent by him and have perused the record. In our opinion, the complainant/respondent was a consumer of Canara bank and not of its individual officers. Therefore, if there was any deficiency in the services rendered to him by the Bank or even by its officers, the complaint ought to have been preferred against the service provider, i.e., Canara Bank. Since the complainant was not a consumer of individual officers of the Bank, it was not permissible for him to implead the aforesaid officers in their individual capacity. For this reason alone, the State Commission, in our opinion, ought to have condoned the delay and entertained the appeal on its merits.

5.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and appeal No.A/14/819 filed by the petitioners is restored to the file of the State Commission, which is directed to hear and decide the appeal on its merits. The parties are directed to appeal before the concerned State Commission on 10.8.2016. The revision petition stands disposed of. The fee of the Amicus Curie be paid as per rules. Dasti.