ORDER : T.M. NADAF, J. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 29.12.2023, passed in C.C. No.260/2016, on the file of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Principal Bench), vide Annexure-B (‘KSCDRC’ for short) and the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in F.A.No.293/2024 on the file of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘NCDRC’ for short), vide Annexure-A, came to be dismissed. 3. Sans details a brief outline of the facts leading to filing of this petition, is as follows: The petitioner filed a complaint before KSCDRC against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State Bank of India alleging that the Bank has committed deficiency of service within the meaning of Section-2(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act of 1986’ for short). The case of the petitioner / complainant before the KSCDRC is that he had opened a NRIE account bearing No.30019524023, on 10.10.2005 and had executed a GPA in favour of his wife/Smt.Narlajarla Sarojini Rathnam on 21.10.2005, authorising her to represent before Financial Institutions, however his wife by virtue of GPA, had effected various transactions with respondent bank during the period from 18.05.2006 to 26.03.2011. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had cancelled the GPA, however, the respondents – Bank allowed the wife of the petitioner to effect various transactions on the basis of cancelled GPA, where the respondents–Bank committed deficiency of service resulting in mental harassment and cruelty, which the petitioner has quantified at Rs.18,41,797/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Seven Only). He had also alleged that the respondents-Bank had failed to exercise due diligence in dealing with his monies in the bank. 5. The respondents-Bank upon service of notice appeared through counsel and filed the statement of objections, refuting the allegations made by the petitioner by contending that the petitioner had given a mandate to his wife by way of executing a GPA dated 21.10.2005, authorizing her to represent him before the Financial Institutions. He had also authorized his wife to operate the account held by the him in the Bank and the respondents- Bank had acted under the GPA and not otherwise. He had also authorized his wife to operate the account held by the him in the Bank and the respondents- Bank had acted under the GPA and not otherwise. It is further stated by the respondents–Bank that, there was some marital disputes between the petitioner and his wife, which he is trying to encash through the Bank. The respondents-Bank specifically contended that the petitioner had approached the respondents–bank and had withdrew FD bearing No.30346538420 on 05.02.2009. The wife of the petitioner by name, Mrs.Sarojini Rathnam, who had operated the account throughout, was not been made party to the proceedings as such, the complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. The value of the claim made by the complainant does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs and the complaint is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Also stated that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of Respondents-Bank happened on 19.03.2007, 01.04.2007, 31.01.2011, 07.12.2010, 06.01.2011, 12.01.2012 and the complaint was filed on 11.11.2016 which is barred by limitation, even the petitioner had not filed application under Section- 24A of the Act of 1986 seeking condonation of delay to entertain his complaint. The respondents–Bank had categorically denied contents of the complaint and submitted that they have not rendered any deficiency in service as alleged by the petitioner. 6. The KSCDRC upon completion of the pleadings framed four points for consideration, which we reproduce as under: i) “Does complaint is bad for non-joinder of Smt.Sarojini Rathnam as contended by OPs? ii) Does complaint is filed within time limitation ? iii) Does Commission had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint ? iv) Does Complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.1 & 2? If so, does he entitle for the relief sought for?” 7. The KSCDRC answered the points against the petitioner holding that, the wife of the petitioner was not made as a party to the dispute; as such, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. So also, the complaint filed on 11.11.2016 for the alleged deficiency in service happened on 19.03.2007, 01.04.2007, 31.01.2011, 07.12.2010, 06.11.2011 and 12.01.2012 is hopelessly barred under Section-24A, Sub-section-(1) of Act of 1986 and also for not filing any application seeking condonation of delay under Section-24A(2) of Act of 1986. The reasons stated in the order passed by KSCDRC are in paragraph Nos.5 to 10 produced at Annexure-B to the petition. The reasons stated in the order passed by KSCDRC are in paragraph Nos.5 to 10 produced at Annexure-B to the petition. However, the KSCDRC reserved the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, as the enquiry before the Commission is summary in nature and the redress alleged by the petitioner cannot be gone into. 8. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by KSCDRC filed an appeal before the NCDRC under Section- 19 of Act of 1986. The NCDRC dismissed the appeal stating its reasons in paragraph Nos.5 to 8, produced at Annexure-A, reserving liberty to the petitioner approach appropriate forum to seek the relief in respect of his grievances against the respondents–bank, with the benefit of Section-14 of the Limitation Act 1963, for the time spent in prosecuting the present litigation. 9. It is this order which is challenged in the present writ petition. 10. We have heard Sri.Manjunath B.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 11. Sri.Manjunath, reiterating the contentions in the complaint before the KSCDRC and in the appeal before the NCDRC submitted that both the State as well as the NCDRC committed serious error in dismissing his complaint and the appeal, without properly appreciating the stand taken before them and the materials placed on record. As such, the orders passed by the KSCDRC as well as the NCDRC suffer from perversity. 12. He further submitted that the respondents-Bank have floated the instructions required by the petitioner by allowing his wife to operate the account on a GPA, which was not in accordance with the format required to be submitted before the bank. He also stated that the KSCDRC has failed to consider that the petitioner was an NRI and returned to India on 03.07.2014 and thereafter he secured all the records and filed the complaint in the year 2016, as such, there is no delay in filing the complaint, however, the KSCDRC fell in error by holding that the complaint is barred under Section-24A(1) and (2) of Act of 1986. 13. 13. It is seen from the record that there are marital disputes between the petitioner and his wife, resulting in filing criminal case against the wife by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.23580/2016, by way of a private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections-406, 420 and 120-B of IPC, which came to be settled in Lokadalat on 01.02.2019. It is also on record that subsequent to the execution of the GPA, the wife of the petitioner operated the account for more than five years, which the petitioner has not objected. It is also on record that he was supplied with the statement of accounts. However, he has not taken any actions till filing of the complaint in the year 2016, for the best reasons known to him. The withdrawal of the case by the petitioner against his wife for the criminal offences itself clearly shows that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents-bank within the meaning of Section-2(g) of the Act of 1986. On the other hand, the same amounts to acquiesce on the part of the petitioner and an incongruent stand by the petitioner. 14. It is also seen from the record that the petitioner had opened another account on 25.09.2010 nominating his wife, this is the precise reason for the KSCDRC to come to a conclusion that the petitioner had knowledge of the alleged transactions effected by his wife from the date of GPA and as such, the petitioner cannot raise a contention that he had no information. The said observations are found in paragraph no.5 of the order passed by the KSCDRC, at Annexure-‘B’. 15. The KSCDRC at paragraph No.9 relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Chairman and Managing Director City Union Bank Limited and Another vs. R.Chandramohan , [Civil Appeal No.7289/2009] , cited by the respondent – Bank, which we reproduce as under: “On the contrary, learned counsel for OP placed reliance the case between The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd., & Anr. vs. R.Chandramohan decided Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7289/2009, wherein held at para 2….. vs. R.Chandramohan decided Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7289/2009, wherein held at para 2….. "During the end of 1996, there was misunderstanding between the respondent and one R.Kularaireman and, therefore, he had written a letter to the appellant no.2 on 08.01.1997 requesting it not to allow withdrawals from the said current account. It was further case of the respondent that one Ravindra, an NRI residing at Malaysia had purchased three flats in the respondent's projects and had informed the complainant that he had sent two drafts i.e., draft bearing No.166570 dated 28.06.1996 For Rs.5 lakhs and draft bearing no. 177923 dated 18.11.1996 for Rs.3 lakhs totally amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs. On the reconciliation of the accounts, it was found that the said two demand drafts were not credited in the said current account of the company opened with the appellant no.2 bank. Despite the information sought by the respondent complainant, the appellant no.2 did not furnish any information. Subsequently, the respondent came to know through Indian Overseas Bank that the said demand drafts were presented through the second appellant bank for clearing and the same were paid to the City Union Bank, Ram Nagar Branch. The respondent therefore once again requested the appellant no.2 on 03.08.1998 informing it that the amount of the said two drafts were credited in some other accounts and therefore the same be re-credited in his current account. In para 12 held "The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The "deficiency in service", as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The "deficiency in service", as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it." Thus, this proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is rightly bearing on the facts in dispute between the Complainant and his wife and in fact is not party to this complaint, but facts remain found from enquiry, a private complaint is filed before Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CC/23580/2016 against his wife which is disposed as settled in Lok-Adalath on 01.02.2019, wherein he alleged against his wife had committed offences punishable U/Ss.406, 420, 120-B of the IPC, yet had chosen to raise consumer complaint against OPs.1 & 2 on 11.11.2016 for the transactions alleged to have happened during 2007, 2010, 2011 & 2012 contending that GPA executed on 21.10.2005 was cancelled by him, but facts remain found from enquiry had some grudge against his wife which to express it had chosen to file this complaint against OPs bank.” 16. The NCDRC in paragraph No.7 of its order observed that the procedures applicable before the Commission are not appropriate to redress the grievance of the petitioner against the respondents–bank with respect to his spouse, and proceeded to dismiss the appeal, which reads as under: “7. After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and on due consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is undisputed that the complainant/ appellant has issued a GPA in favour of his wife to operate his said account in the OP bank. It is also an admitted position that subsequently there were some marital disputes between the complainant and his wife, and he initiated legal proceedings against her which included certain criminal cases which were settled in Lok Adalat on 01.12.2019. Under these circumstances, in our view, summary procedures applicable before this Commission are not appropriate to redress his grievances against the OP Bank with respect to his spouse. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Order passed by the learned State Commission dated 29.12.2023 is just and proper and does not require any interference. Under these circumstances, in our view, summary procedures applicable before this Commission are not appropriate to redress his grievances against the OP Bank with respect to his spouse. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Order passed by the learned State Commission dated 29.12.2023 is just and proper and does not require any interference. Therefore, the F.A. No. 293 of 2024 is dismissed.” 17. As could be seen from the orders passed by the KSCDRC, as well as the NCDRC and the material produced on record, admittedly, there were some marital disputes between the petitioner and his wife, which culminated in filing of criminal case, ultimately ended in settlement before the Lokadalat in the year 2019. The petitioner is not permitted to drag the respondents-bank before the KSCDRC in a complaint for deficiency of service as stated in Section-2(g) of the Act of 1986, as the petitioner has failed to establish deficiency of service as well as the complaint is in time. We are satisfied with the reasons given by both the KSCDRC in the complaint, as well as the NCDRC in the appeal filed against the dismissal of the complaint. Given the facts, we see no infirmity in the orders impugned in the petition, that too when both the KSCDRC, as well as the NCDRC have given liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to seek relief in respect of his grievances against the respondents-bank. F or the reasons stated supra, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition filed calling in question the order dated 29.12.2023, passed in C.C. No.260/2016, on the file of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Principal Bench) vide Annexure-B and the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in F.A.No.293/2024 on the file of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide Annexure-A is dismissed. ii) No order as to cost.