ORDER PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 373 of 2014, Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Kuthiala, by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 9.7.2014 allowed complaint and directed opposite party-petitioner to pay Rs.3,36,300/- with 9% p.a. interest to the complainant alongwith compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 30.12.2014, against which this Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation; hence revision petition be allowed and delay in filing appeal be condoned and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding appeal on merits. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of application for condonation of delay filed before the State Commission reveals that certified copy of District Forum order was received by opposite party on 1.8.2014, which was sent to Mumbai on 6.8.2014 and opinion was received on 22.8.2014 and opposite party asked lawyer to prepare appeal and appeal was drafted and was sent to opposite party on 8.9.2014. Perusal of affidavit sworn by Kshama Priyadarshini, Chief Manager reveals that affidavit was sworn on 15.9.2014. Thus, it becomes clear that appeal was ready for filing on 15.9.2014. Perusal of revision petition reveals that local counsel, on receipt of memo of appeal, asked for some more documents for filing appeal, which were sent by opposite party to its counsel on 14.10.2014 and later on they were sent to local advocate, who filed appeal on 27.10.2014. Thus, it becomes clear that there was no intentional delay in filing appal as appeal was already duly drafted before 15.9.2014 and there is reasonable explanation for condonation of delay and learned State Commission committed error in not condoning delay. In such circumstances, in the light of latest judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 – Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr; (2) Civil Appeal No. 10289 of 2014 – A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India; and (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 – Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively in filing revision petition was condoned on cost, we deem it appropriate to allow revision petition and condone delay in filing appeal subject to cost. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 373 of 2014 - Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Kuthiala is set aside and application for condonation of delay filed before learned State Commission is allowed and delay stands condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- by appellant to respondent and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties subject to making payment of cost on or before the date of appearance before State Commission. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 17.10.2016. | 
