IA/3303/2023 (Delay Condonation Application) This application has been moved praying for condoning the delay of 54 days in the filing of the appeal. Sufficient cause has been shown. The application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated to have been filed within limitation. Appeal Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Suman Bagga, learned counsel for respondent no.1, and Mr. Amit Tatke, learned counsel for respondent no.2. This appeal questions the correctness of the order dated 08.12.2022 whereby the complainant/appellant’s case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The impugned order is extracted hereunder: “None for complainant. Shri Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party No.1. Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. This complaint is pending since 1.2.2019. None appeared for complainant on 7.9.2021, 1.11.2021, 20.5.2022 and 23.6.2022. From 29.2.2020 the complaint is being adjourned from time to time for filing of rejoinder by the complainant but the rejoinder has not yet been filed by him. Service Post Cards were also issued to complainant and his counsel on 20.5.2022 and 23.6.2022 informing them the next date of hearing but none appeared. There is no request/application on behalf of complainant to adjourn the case. 2. Complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.” The contention raised by the learned counsel is that primarily it was on account of the Covid days that this mismanagement of the case occurred and there was no proper communication of the complainant with his lawyer. Even otherwise, the State Commission has taken a harsh view regarding non-appearance and so far as the service of post card is concerned, the impugned order does not record actual service and proceeds on the assumption of information having been received by the complainant. It is evident from the dates as disclosed in the order itself that it was mostly covered by the Covid period. In the wake of those extreme circumstances, the approach to be taken in such matters has been explained by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. We are satisfied that the complainant should not be denied access to justice in such circumstances and the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents opposing this appeal on the grounds taken cannot be sustained. The circumstances of the case clearly demand an empathetic, pragmatic and compassionate view for restoring the case to be heard on merits. Exercise of discretion on the present facts is expedient and necessary to prevent any prejudice or injustice when the narrative of the circumstances reflect bonafide and seemingly genuine explanation. Therefore continuance of the impugned order may result in failure to exercise jurisdiction causing miscarriage of justice. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 08.12.2022 of the SCDRC is set aside. The complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for decision afresh on merits. Both the parties shall appear before the State Commission on 30.08.2024. It shall be open to the State Commission to proceed accordingly thereafter. | 
