JUDGMENT : Gita Mittal, CJ.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 29th October, 2018 pass by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar in complaint No. 39/2018. 2. The order came to be passed in a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 in May, 2018 before the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, under Sections 15 and 16 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987, seeking compensation of Rs. one crore. 3. The complaint was premised on the ground that respondent No. 2 had received a notice dated 26th December, 2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 corresponding to the financial year 2009-10. In terms of the assessment order dated 26th December, 2017, the respondent No. 2’s detailed turnover for the assessment year 2010-11 was assessed at Rs. 1,25,40,370/-. The Income Tax Department had raised a net income tax demand as payable by respondent No. 2 at Rs. 6,62,050/-. 4. The complaint of respondent No. 2 was premised on the allegation that on account of unfavourable circumstances prevailing in the Kashmir valley, his profession as an advocate was badly affected and he could not earn a livelihood for himself and for his family there from. As such, he was constrained to approach the writ petitioner for grant of loan facility more than a decade back, for establishing a brick kiln unit in the vicinity of his residence situated at Brakepora Anantnag. On completion of required formalities, respondent No. 2 was accorded sanction for release of cash credit limit up to the tune of Rs. 7.00 lacs and, as such, respondent No. 2 was got engaged in brick kiln business. The cash credit limit was maintained by respondent No. 2 satisfactorily without any complaint of any nature, well within the authorized drawing power and within the sanctioned limits as also the norms prescribed by the State Bank of India, the writ petitioner. 5. In para 3 and 4 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 (as petitioner in the complaint) has averred as follows: “3. That the petitioner has been maintaining the account of borrower/complainant digitally and there is absolutely no dispute with the amounts withdrawn by the borrower/ respondent or interest charged by Bank. 5. In para 3 and 4 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2 (as petitioner in the complaint) has averred as follows: “3. That the petitioner has been maintaining the account of borrower/complainant digitally and there is absolutely no dispute with the amounts withdrawn by the borrower/ respondent or interest charged by Bank. However, respondent has objected to entries made at the end of every month by virtue of which the utilized credit has been withdrawn, interest calculated and debited and on the same days the utilized balance in the limit has been kept at disposal of the borrower/respondent during the year 2009 to 2010 (Book transfers) of Debit and Credit are made on the same day or next working day and the transactions are clearly non-financial. The officers are SBI are duty bound to maintain the account giving correct picture of the amount due from the petitioner. There was no dispute with regard to the transactions. 4. That, the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint before the respondent No. 1 in terms of Section 15 & 16 of J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 seeking a compensation of Rs. 1.00 Crore, on the ground of having received a notice from Income-Tax Officer Ward-3(4) Anantnag regarding assessment of Income-Tax for the assessment year 2010-11 corresponding to financial year 2009.10. In terms of the assessment order passed by the Income-Tax Department, the petitioners total turn-over for the said assessment year has been taken as Rs. 1,15,40,370/-. Accordingly, Income-Tax Department has raised a demand of Rs. 6,62,050/-.”(Underlining by us) 6. Contending that the respondent No. 2 had never authorized the debit and credit transaction effected in his cash credit loan account, the same was unauthorized and illegal, the respondent No. 2 submitted that the writ petitioner had used the cash credit loan account of the respondent No. 2 for a purpose other than the one against which loan has been sanctioned. In this background, complaining of deficiency and defective nature of service which is contrary to the mandate of law and the contractual provisions, the respondent No. 2 had filed the aforesaid complaint before the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Additionally, it was averred that the transactions shown in the account were fraudulent, that they were acts of unfair practice and deficiency of service on the part of the writ petitioner. Additionally, it was averred that the transactions shown in the account were fraudulent, that they were acts of unfair practice and deficiency of service on the part of the writ petitioner. A grievance is made that the respondent No. 2’s application dated 30th January, 2018 and 10th April, 2018 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag for registration of FIR against the Bank for those illegal acts failed to yield any response. Respondent No. 2 claims to have consequently filed a criminal complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag for registration of a criminal case against the appellant and his officials. 7. This complaint before the Consumer Commission was contested by the writ petitioner herein. A written reply thereto was filed. Amongst the several preliminary objections taken by the writ petitioner, it was objected as preliminary objection B, that the complaint was grossly time barred having its genesis in transactions in the year 2008 which were well beyond the limitation of two years provided under Section 18A of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987. It was also contended that no application seeking condonation of delay had been filed and that no reason for not filing the complaint within the limitation period had been given in the complaint. The writ petitioner had contended that the complaint, therefore, could not be entertained and was liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 8. This objection of the writ petitioner came to be considered by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as a preliminary objection on 29th October, 2019. The Commission was of the view that the case of the complainant is that it is only the year 2017 when he received notices from the Income-Tax Department, Anantnag regarding the assessment of income tax for the assessment year 2010-11, that the respondent No. 2 came to be aware of the matter. The Commission also noted that the writ petitioner had nowhere stated in the written reply that the respondent No. 2 was aware of the transactions in 2008. The Commission also noted that the writ petitioner had nowhere stated in the written reply that the respondent No. 2 was aware of the transactions in 2008. In the absence of pleadings on the part of the writ petitioner, the Commission had no choice but to accept the contention of the complainant that the cause for filing the complaint arose to the respondent No. 2 only when he received notice from the Income-Tax Department in April, 2017 and, therefore, he has right to file a complaint within two years from the date he has done. It was in this background that the objection raised by the opposite party was over-ruled. 9. The present writ petition has been filed by the Bank contending that the cause of action, if any, had arisen to the complainant on the day of each alleged transaction recorded in the account or when the last of such transactions had been recorded and the same did not get deferred till the order of assessment was made by the Income-Tax Officer. It was submitted that the complainant was required to explain the delay in filing the complaint and to show that he was not aware of the entries. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in this background, the State Commission had no power to condone the delay without there being an application seeking condonation and without any explanation whatsoever. The order dated 29th October, 2018 passed by the Jammu and KashmirState Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has been challenged on these grounds. 10. In support of the challenge, the writ petitioner has placed reliance on the pronouncements of Supreme Court reported as 2006 (1) SCC 164 Haryana Urban Development Authority v. B.K.Sood, 2009 (5) Supreme To-Day 377, Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. & Anr. 11. We have heard Mr. Q.R. Shamas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Haqani, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 at length and given our considered thought to the matter. 12. We note that the writ petitioner did take a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by time in the preliminary objection. However, by its pleadings in its reply on merits to the averments in the complaint, the Bank defeated this objection completely. 12. We note that the writ petitioner did take a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by time in the preliminary objection. However, by its pleadings in its reply on merits to the averments in the complaint, the Bank defeated this objection completely. We extract hereafter para 3 and 4 of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 and the response of the writ petitioner thereto in a tabulation. Averments made in the complaint under Sections 15 & 16 of the J&KState Consumers Protection Act by respondent No. 2 . (Paras 3 & 4) Reply filed by the State Bank of India 3. That, it was, however, in the month of August, 2017 that the petitioner received notices from the office of income Tax Officer Ward-3/4, Anantnag regarding assessment of Income Tax for the assessment year 2010-11. In terms of the final assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Department, the petitioner total turnover for the said assessment years had been taken at Rs. 1,25,40,370. The petitioners said turnover had been obtained and assessed by the Income Tax Authorities on the basis of the assessment of account obtained by them directly from the opposite party at my back and without my knowledge . 4. That the petitioner was alleged to have filed incorrect returns and thus was put to penalty on account of concealment of income with net demand raised at Rs.6,62,050/= The petitioner was also assessed by the Income Tax in the similar manner for the subsequent years and it was accordingly an amount of Rs. 600060/= lakhs were directly withdrawn by the income Tax Authority from joint account No. 0014040100015979 J&K Bank T.P.Branch Anantnag in the name of complainant and Miss Hanifa Banoo leaving behind Rs. 216 and Pisa 28 as balance. This was conveyed by the Branch Manager J&K Bank T.P.Anantnag vide his communication dated JKB/TP/2018-771 dated 24/01/2018 and SMS message dated 24/01/2018 which reads as follows “You’re a/CXX15979 is debited by INR600060 at 12:19 an account of ATT order U/S 2 A/C Bal is INR 216.28 Available Bal is INR 08. The I T Department Anantnag inconsequence of assessment order, also initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty against the complainant for the money which does not belong to him. The petitioner annexes herewith the relevant documents testifying the above facts and the same collectively marked as Annexure-A ” 3. The I T Department Anantnag inconsequence of assessment order, also initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty against the complainant for the money which does not belong to him. The petitioner annexes herewith the relevant documents testifying the above facts and the same collectively marked as Annexure-A ” 3. Contents of para 3 & 4 being matter of record are not denied .” (Emphasis by us) 13. The above extract would show that the averments of respondent No. 2 to the effect that the respondent No 2’s turnover at Rs. 1, 25,40,370/- had been assessed by the Income Tax Authorities on the basis of the statement of account obtained by them directly from the opposite party (i.e., State Bank of India) at his back and without his knowledge, were admitted by the writ petitioner as “being matter of record are not denied.” There was thus clear admission to the case of the respondent No. 2 before the State Commission. 14. We have also scrutinized the reply which was filed by the writ petitioner before the State Commission and find that the writ petitioner has actually nowhere alleged that the respondent No. 2 was aware of the entries which had been made in his account in the year 2008. 15. The entire case of the respondent No. 2 before the State Commission is of fraudulent entries made without authorization by the writ petitioner in the account of respondent No. 2 and without his knowledge. 16. We also find that the writ petitioner has admitted the specific pleadings of respondent No. 2 that he was operating the cash credit limit satisfactorily without any complaint whatsoever and that the same was well within the drawing power and also as per the norms prescribed by the Bank. 17. Therefore, the findings of the State Commission that the writ petitioner had nowhere stated in the written version that the complainant was aware of the transaction in 2008, is clearly supported by the record of the complaint including the Bank’s reply and cannot be assailed. 18. Mr. Shamas has placed before us the judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported as 2009 (5) Supreme To-Day 377, Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. & Anr. 18. Mr. Shamas has placed before us the judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported as 2009 (5) Supreme To-Day 377, Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. v. National Insurance Co. & Anr. In this case, the evidence on record showed that the cause of action in respect of a special insurance policy arose on 22nd /23rd March, 1988 when a fire took place in the godown of the appellant damaging the tabacoo stocks which were hypothecated with the Bank in whose account the policy had been taken by the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the limitation for the purpose of Section 24A of the Consumers Protection Act., 1986 began to run from 23rd March, 1988 when the fire occurred. As such, it was held that the complaint before the Commission against the Insurance Company for deficiency in service, ought to have been filed within two years thereof. We find that in the case before the Supreme Court, the complaint was filed eleven years later on or after 24th October, 1997 which was held by the State Commission to be clearly barred by time. The Supreme Court agreed with the State Commission on the above factual narration and findings. 19. The factual background in which this case was placed is materially different from the present case before us. Here the writ petitioner has admitted the case of respondent No. 2 that it learnt of the acts on the part of the writ petitioner which were complained only when he received the notice in 2017 from the Income Tax Department. The complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 in 2018. 20. In 2006 (1) SCC 164 , Haryana Development Authority v. B.K.Sood, also relied upon by the writ petitioner, the respondent had filed the complaint against the appellant challenging the notice of demand dated 31st May, 1996 issued by the appellant with regard to the payment for a booth/site plot which had been auctioned by the respondent in which the respondent’s bid had been accepted. While the appellant complained of defaults in payments by the respondent, according to the respondent, there were deficiencies in the booth requiring rectification. The respondent sought directions for the same and also claimed compensation on account of damage to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs for the appellant’s alleged gross failure to discharge the legal duties. While the appellant complained of defaults in payments by the respondent, according to the respondent, there were deficiencies in the booth requiring rectification. The respondent sought directions for the same and also claimed compensation on account of damage to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs for the appellant’s alleged gross failure to discharge the legal duties. In this case, the Supreme Court had noted that two complaints had been filed by the respondent making a prayer for award of compensation. 21. The State Commission had accepted the claim of the respondent and issued several directions to the respondent including making payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs by way of compensation for the monetary loss and the mental agony, harassment suffered by him on acceptance of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. On appeal, the National Commission while setting aside the other directions, however, maintained the direction regarding the entitlement of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation to the respondent. This amount was directed to be adjusted from the amount payable by the appellant to the respondent. 22. Both the parties filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court which came to be decided by the judgment which has been reported as above. The Supreme Court has noted that in view of Section 24A of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986, a duty was cast on the Commission admitting the complaint, to dismiss the complaint which was not filed within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years. 23. So far as the case before the Supreme Court was concerned, it was observed that the cause of action had arisen to the respondent when possession was received of the booth site and it was found by the complainant that an area less than the area advertised had been given when possession was received of the booth site in January, 1987. With regard to other grievance, it was found that the cause of action had arisen in the year 1989. With regard to other grievance, it was found that the cause of action had arisen in the year 1989. The complaint was filed before the State Consumer Commission only in the year 1997 which was ten years after the taking of possession, eight years after the cause of alleged damage commenced and three years after that cause ceased. The Supreme Court had noted that there was not even a prayer made by the complainant for condoning the delay. In this background, it was held by the Supreme Court that the complaint was clearly barred by limitation and the appeal by the appellant was accepted. 24. This judgment has also no application to the facts of the instant case wherein the writ petitioner has nowhere stated that the respondent No. 2 was aware of the transactions having been entered in his account in the year 2008. On the contrary, the writ petitioner had admitted the plea of the respondent No. 2 that he became aware of this fact only in the year 2017, on receipt of the notice from the income tax authorities. This being the factual position, the period of two years for filing the complaint would expire only in the year 2019. The complaint having been filed in April, 2018 is well within the statutory period of limitation of two years. 25. For this reason, respondent No. 2, in our view, did not need to make any prayer seeking condonation of delay, either in the complaint or by a separate application for the same. 26. In this background, the findings of the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the cause of action to file the complaint arose only in April, 2017, cannot be faulted. 27. We may also note the submission made by Mr. Haqani on behalf of the respondent No. 2, who has pointed out the difference in the Central Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 which applies in this State. 28. While limitation for filing a complaint so far as the Central enactment is concerned, it is prescribed in Section 24A thereof. So far as the limitation for filing a complaint under the State enactment is concerned, the same is prescribed in Section 18A. 28. While limitation for filing a complaint so far as the Central enactment is concerned, it is prescribed in Section 24A thereof. So far as the limitation for filing a complaint under the State enactment is concerned, the same is prescribed in Section 18A. For expediency, these provisions are extracted hereafter: (i) Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:- “24-A. Limitation period.- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint with such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.” (ii) Section 18 A of the Jammu and Kashmir Protection Act, 1987:- “18-A. Limitation period – (1) The District Forum or the State Commission may not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the complainant satisfies the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Forum or the State Commission, as the case may be, records its reason for condoning such delay.”(Emphasis by us) 29. Mr. Haqani would emphasis the discretion conferred under Section 18 A of the State enactment which states that the District Forum or the State Commission “may” not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. 30. It was submitted by Mr. Mr. Haqani would emphasis the discretion conferred under Section 18 A of the State enactment which states that the District Forum or the State Commission “may” not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arises. 30. It was submitted by Mr. Haqani that under Section 24A of the Central law, the District Forum and the State Commission are precluded from entertaining the complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose by use of expression “shall”. 31. Mr. Haqani has also placed reliance of the Division Bench pronouncement of this Court reported as 2010 (2) JKJ 412 , National Insurance Company v. Poshkar Nath Pandita & Sons, wherein the Court held as follows: “3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kandimalla Ragavaiah and Company v. National Insurnce Company, reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of limitation as prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which says in no uncertain terms, that the Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found as a fact that cause of action by reason of the peril covered by the Insurance policy, i.e., fie, arose on March 22, 1988; whereas the claim was filed on October 24, 1997 and, accordingly, held that the claim was barred by time. The Consumer Protection Act 1986, under which the Commission was constituted and before whom the claim was lodged, in Section 24A provides that the Divisional Forum and the State Commission my not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which cause of action has arisen. Therefore, insofar as the law applicable to this State is concerned, it is not a complete bar on the State Commission to entertain a claim beyond two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen, the same is discretionary. Therefore, insofar as the law applicable to this State is concerned, it is not a complete bar on the State Commission to entertain a claim beyond two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen, the same is discretionary. However, in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 24A of the State Act, which authorizes the Commission to condone delay for reasons to be recorded, it must be deemed that the discretion granted to it by Sub Section (1) of Section 18A must always be used in not entertaining a complaint beyond two years from the date on which the cause of action arises, unless delay is condoned. However, inasmuch as, in the instant case, after having had considered the respective contentions of the parties, the Division Bench had already observed that the claim cannot be said to be spurious or belated, we feel that, insofar as the present case is concerned, it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to use its discretion in entertaining the complaint, without insisting for formal steps to be taken by the complainant seeking condonation of delay. In other words, having regard to the pronouncements made in the judgment of the Division Bench, there was a clear indication of grounds for entertaining the claim, though may have had been filed after two years from the date when the cause of action, i.e., malicious activity resulting in los, arouse.” (Emphasis by us) 32. On application of the principles laid down in this pronouncement, therefore, even if it could be held that the complaint in this case was barred by limitation, the respondent No. 2 had laid down the factual matrix to explain the circumstance in which the complaint could be filed only after. 2017. An additional consideration would be the admission of these averments by the writ petitioner. 33. For this reason as well the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. 34. Given the averments in para 3 of the complaint which stand admitted by the writ petitioner-Bank, the State Commission, was correct in holding that the cause to file the complaint arose only when the complainant received the notice from the Income Tax Department in April, 2017. Consequently, the complaint filed in the year 2018 was within the statutory period of limitation of two years. 35. For all these reasons, the instant petition is completely mis-conceived. Consequently, the complaint filed in the year 2018 was within the statutory period of limitation of two years. 35. For all these reasons, the instant petition is completely mis-conceived. The writ petition is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.25,000/-.