PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 12-09-2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1050/2012 ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Baldev Raj Dudeja, by which appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Learned District Forum vide order dated 22-02-2012 allowed complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed opposite party/petitioner to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony within two months failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable on this amount from the date of complaint till the date of payment and further allowed Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No. 614 of 2014 filed by the complaint against impugned order was dismissed by learned State Commission as barred by 48 days and appeal filed by the opposite party/petitioner was also dismissed as barred by 194 days against which this revision petition has been filed. Complainant has not filed any revision petition against the impugned order. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Petitioner filed application for condonation of delay of 10 days along with revision petition. As there is delay of only 10 days in filing revision petition, application is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application and delay of 10 days in filing revision petition stands condoned. 5. Learned State Commission dismissed appeal as it was barred by 194 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum passed order in absence of petitioner against which appeal along with application for condonation of delay was filed before learned State Commission. Para 5 to 12 of this application runs as under:-- hat as per the records of the forum the same was prepared on 28.02.2012. That the copy of the complainant was taken on 29.02.2012. That the case was being handled by a law firm by the name of Law Access, New Delhi. That there having arisen a dispute between the bank and the said law firm he said advocates topped appearing in the forum. That the order was passed and even the appellant was not represented at the time of the arguments. That the appellant was also not informed about the same wherein the bank could have made alternative arrangements. Hence the bank was not aware of the proceedings and the order having been passed by the forum below as the order copy was also not received by the bank. That the bank became aware of the same when notice was received in the appeal filed by the respondent to put in appearance for the 19th of July, 2012. That the same was received in the first week of July, 2012. That only the notice was received without any attachments. That the appellant applied for and obtained the duplicate copies of the complete record. That the same were provided on 18-07-2012. That the advice was taken of the counsel at Delhi. That the sanction was required to be taken from the head office for filing of appeal. That the sanction was granted in the second week of August, 2012 after the complete situation was explained by the office at Delhi as also the case was studied at length. 6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that counsel for the petitioner did not appear before District Forum and learned District Forum allowed complaint ex-parte on 22-02-2012. Counsel for the petitioner did not apprise to petitioner about the order of the District Forum and petitioner came to know in the week of July, 2012 about the order when petitioner received notice of appeal filed by the respondent/complainant. It appears that immediately petitioner applied for copies of the record and same were received by the petitioner on 18-07-2012 and advice was taken from the counsel and sanction for filing appeal was received in second week of August, 2012 and appeal was filed on 05-09-2012. In such circumstances, it becomes clear that as soon as petitioner got knowledge of disposal of complaint by District Forum, petitioner took immediate steps to file appeal and after obtaining copies on 18-07-2012, appeal was filed on 05-09-2012 meaning thereby within 50 days after obtaining copies of record. 7. Apparently, there was delay of 194 days in filing the appeal, but strictly speaking looking to the explanation and record, there was delay of only about 20 days in filing the appeal. Learned State Commission should have condoned delay and decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing appeal as barred by limitation. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 12-09-2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1050/2012 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Baldev Raj Dudeja is set aside and application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before State Commission is allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- and learned State Commission is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 9. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 04.04.2014. 10. Complainant has not challenged order of learned State Commission in appeal no. 614/2012 and to that extent impugned order dated 12-09-2012 has not been set aside.