Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member: Adv.A.S.vidyarthi files an affidavit of officer as directed by this Commission on 12/08/2010. As per the said affidavit this claim is not covered as a part of the class action petition filed in terms of complaint no.27/2008 has bee filed before Hon’ble National Commission by the Government of Maharashtra. This statement is based on the report of Cabal Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. appointed by the Govt. of Maharashtra. There is no legal hitch in going ahead with this matter. We heard Adv. Mr.Shelke for appellant and Adv.Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi for respondent. This appeal arises out of order passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint decided on 28/01/2009. The complaint was filed by the Smt.Phulabai Shankar Pawar against the ICICI Lombard, General Insurance company since her daughter died in an accident and she was covered by the insurance policy purchased by Government of Maharashtra from ICICI Lombard /respondent. She has lodged a claim with the respondent after the death of her daughter but insurance company repudiated the claim and therefore, she was required to file consumer complaint which she filed on 16/2/2009. She had also filed delay condonation application along with the consumer complaint. Forum below however was pleased to reject her prayer for condonation of delay and at the stage of admission itself the complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, original complainant/ Smt Phulabai Shankar Pawar has filed this appeal. Upon hearing Adv.Vidyarthi for the respondent, we are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is bad in law and cannot be sustain in law. The poor lady, who is illiterate, to whom the repudiation letter has been issued by the respondent/insurance company was written in English. That is why she was required to run from pillar to post to get it understood and to know as to what had happened to her claim lodged with the insurance company. Under these circumstances, the delay condonation application filed along with the complaint should have been allowed by the Forum below and the complainant should have been allowed to prosecue the complaint holding that there was just and sufficient cause shown in the delay condonation application to condone the delay. Therefore, the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nashik is certainly not sustainable in law on the ground of illiteracy itself. The Forum below could have condoned the delay and should have taken cognizance of the complaint by admitting the complaint. Forum below clearly erred in law in nipping the course of justice at the bud stage itself. So by allowing this appeal after quashing the order of Forum below, we are allowing the application file for condonation of delay filed by the org.complainant under Section 24 (1) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Impugned order dated 28/01/2009 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nashik is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint is allowed. Complaint is admitted and remanded back to the District Consumer Redressal Forum for hearing afresh. 4. Both the parties are directed to appear both the parties on merits and to appear before District Consumer Redressal Forum, Nashik on 15/01/2011. 5. We also direct appellant to impleade Government of Maharashtra as one of the party to the complaint. Ultimately, it is Government of Maharashtra, who has purchased policy for the poor segment in the larger interest of that particular community. 6. No order as to costs. 7. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule. | 
