We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in person.

          The petitioner had filed appeal No. FA 10/193 before the State Commission, feeling aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Forum. There was delay of 32 days in filing of that appeal. The State Commission held that delay of 32 days was not sufficiently explained and therefore, rejected the application for condonation of delay. The State Commission declined to decide the appeal on merits and dismissed it on the technical ground that the delay was not duly explained as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The grievance of the respondent is that he is sufferer. He is unnecessarily dragged in the litigation notwithstanding a favorable order passed by the District Consumer Forum. The petitioner’s counsel submits that amount awarded by the District Forum has been deposited with the State Commission. The issue needs to be sorted out on merit.

          Perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission assumed that the copy of the order, which was allegedly sent by the registered post on 10.12.2009 could have been normally received by the petitioner within a period of 7 days. The contention of the petitioner was that it was received on 31.12.2009. The petitioner is not an individual, but is a company incorporated under the specific enactment. It is but natural that decision to prefer an appeal is required to be vetted by an appropriate authority. The process takes certain time. The delay of only 32 days could not have been intentional. The petitioner had given sufficient cause for the delay. Considering these aspects, the impugned order is reflective of element of perversity. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.