By this Revision Petition, the Complainant, the Petitioner herein, calls in question the correctness and propriety of order dated 01.08.2011, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”), in First Appeal No. 673 of 2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone a delay of 30 days in filing of the Appeal by the Petitioner and has dismissed the same as barred by limitation. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application, wherein explanation for the said delay was furnished by the Petitioner. We are of the opinion that, on facts at hand, the State Commission has failed to exercise the discretion vested in it under proviso to section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In the explanation furnished by the Petitioner, in the amended application, it was stated that delay had occurred because of confusion in the case number as also the date of the institution of the complaint, mentioned on the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi. We are satisfied that the cause pleaded by the Petitioner was bonafide and he had made out a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Appeal and, therefore, the delay should have been condoned. Consequently, we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. [(2009) 8 SCC 481], the District Forum had not decided the complaint on merits. A similar issue had come up for consideration of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 1228 of 2013. Taking note of the letter dated 24.01.2014, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and IT, wherein it was clarified that in view of hiving off of telecom services into a separate company, section 7B of the Telegraph Act had no application, vide order dated 02.05.2014 this Commission has held that such complaints were maintainable before the Consumer Fora. In view of the said order, we feel that in order to cut short the life of litigation, it would be appropriate to revive the Complaint No. 89 of 2008, filed by the Petitioner before the District Forum for fresh adjudication on merits. It is ordered accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 30.10.2014 for directions. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. | 
