JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, C.J.-- 1. This appeal is filed by the Chairman, J&K Bank as well as by the Branch Manager, J&K Bank, Qamarwari, Srinagar challenging the order passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, dated 22.07.2014 made in Complaint No. 101/2012, awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent who is a businessman selling articles under the name and style of Kashmir Arts, for harassment and loss of face suffered by him due to the publication of his photograph as defaulter to the tune of Rs. 16.72 Lacs in daily newspaper Greater Kashmir on 21.08.2009, though he was to pay a sum of Rs. 4,82,983.53 only. 2. Stating that the said action of the Bank has tarnished his reputation and business interest as if he is a bankrupt and sustained business loss apart from mental stress, claiming Rs. 15 lacs as compensation with Rs. 50,000/- as costs, the complaint was filed by the respondent before the Divisional Forum, Srinagar initially in November, 2011 which was returned by the Divisional Forum in view of valuation, to be presented before the, J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the Commission hereafter),due to which the complainant presented the complaint before the Commission on 27.07.2012. For condoning the delay in presenting the complaint the complainant filed an application stating that he was out of the State on religious tour with Allahwale. The said condone delay application was opposed by the appellants, however, the delay was condoned and the matter was taken up for consideration on merits and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have challenged the order by contending that without first disposing of the condone delay application and giving liberty to contest the matter on merits after the delay is condoned, the Commission has chosen to decide the merits of the matter on condone delay stage itself, may be after condoning the delay, and the said procedure is not proper. The second contention of the appellant- Bank is that merely because the respondent availed loan, the transaction between the appellants and the respondent cannot be treated as a service and unless it is treated as service, there cannot be any deficiency of service to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. He has also relied on certain decisions in support of his contention. 4. He has also relied on certain decisions in support of his contention. 4. The said contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent by stating that banking service is a service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and the deficiency in service due to which the reputation of the respondent was tarnished in the society as a huge amount was shown as liability for defaulter even though 1/4th amount alone was required to be paid by the respondent to the Bank and there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of the amount payable, namely, 4,82,983/- by the respondent to the Bank and not Rs. 16.72 lacs. Therefore, the Commission was right in entertaining the complaint and after hearing the case on merits only the decision was rendered awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the harassment and loss of reputation suffered by the respondent. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent availed loan facility from the appellant-Bank holding loan account No. 0256268000000041 and he was having a due of Rs. 4,82,983.53 only. However, in the newspaper namely Greater Kashmir dated 21.08.2009 the respondent’s photograph was published as a defaulter to the tune of Rs. 16.72 lacs and subsequently the mistake was corrected by the appellant- Bank by issuing a corrigendum on 26.08.2009 published in a local daily and the entire amount payable by the respondent to the Bank was also paid. It is also not in dispute that in November, 2011 the respondent preferred a complaint before the Divisional Forum with about two months delay. Section 18-A of the Consumer Protection Act contemplates filing of complaint within two years, however, the delay can be condoned if sufficient reasons are shown. The complaint preferred before the Divisional Forum was returned to the respondent with an advice to file the same before the State Commission and the complaint was filed before the State Commission on 27.07.2012. The respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint along with the complaint. In effect the delay on the part of the respondent was about two months only as the complaint was filed in November, 2011 before the Divisional Forum which was returned and the same is not disputed. The respondent filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint along with the complaint. In effect the delay on the part of the respondent was about two months only as the complaint was filed in November, 2011 before the Divisional Forum which was returned and the same is not disputed. Thus the respondent was bonafidely prosecuting the matter in a Forum which has no jurisdiction and on return of the complaint he preferred the same before the State Commission and explained the reason for the delay in preferring the complaint in time. 7. Considering the said fact the State Commission condoned the delay in presenting the complaint and decided to hear the matter on merits. The appellants filed objections not only for condone delay but also on merits of the case projected by the respondent. The learned counsel who appeared for the appellant-Bank was heard on merits as his appearance is noticed in the order which was passed on 22.07.2014. Thus the appellants are not justified in contending that the State Commission ought not to have heard the matter on merits on the same day on which the delay was condoned. 8. The merits of the case can be gone into and decision can be rendered while deciding the condone delay application stage after giving opportunity to argue the matter on merits as no prejudice is caused to the appellants. Thus the procedure adopted by the State Commission in proceeding with the main matter on merits after condoning the delay cannot be find fault with and there is no ground to set aside the order of the Commission on that score. 9. The second issue raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the Bank is not rendering any services and respondent cannot come within the meaning of a consumer. For the said submission the definition of consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, namely Section 2(e), deficiency as defined in Section 2(g) and service as defined in Section 2(o) are to be considered. The said sections reads as follows- “2. For the said submission the definition of consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, namely Section 2(e), deficiency as defined in Section 2(g) and service as defined in Section 2(o) are to be considered. The said sections reads as follows- “2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, e) consumer dispute means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies of disputes the allegations contained in the complaint; (g) deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under in any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; (o) service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information, under a contract of personal service.” 10. The banking transaction and the facilities provided due to banking transactions having been included in the definition of service and any deficiency in the said services can be complained before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Thus the maintainability of the complaint before the State Commission cannot be questioned and the said ground raised by the appellants has rightly been rejected. 11. Insofar as the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is concerned, the respondent being a businessman and his name and photograph having been published in leading newspaper, namely, Greater Kashmir which is having wide publication, stating that he is a defaulter to the tune of Rs. 16.72 lacs, has tarnished his image from amongst the family members, relatives and the business community even though a corrigendum was issued on 26.08.2009 which was also published in a local daily, tarnishing of his reputation, the mental stress and sustained business loss, cannot at all be denied which was specifically pleaded in the complaint. Thus the appellants are bound to compensate the respondent for their deficiency in service. 12. In the complaint the respondent has claimed damages for a sum of Rs. 15 lacs and cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The State Commission has chosen to award only a sum of Rs. Thus the appellants are bound to compensate the respondent for their deficiency in service. 12. In the complaint the respondent has claimed damages for a sum of Rs. 15 lacs and cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The State Commission has chosen to award only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The said amount cannot be treated on higher side on any account as the loss to the business and reputation has occasioned. The compensation awarded being reasonable and not arbitrary, this Court is not persuaded to take a different view. 13. In such circumstances, we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Consumer Commission and the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 14. The award amount having been already deposited, the respondent is entitled to get the same released by filing an appropriate application.