JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 

2.      The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was delayed by 87 days. 

-2-

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that counsel, who was handling the matter had resigned but he did not inform about the progress of this case.  Consequently, the delay was caused.

4.      This fact is mentioned in the order of State Commission in paras 3 and 4, which are reproduced as follows:

“Shri Vidyarthi submits that this was a second bout of litigation.  The Forum had decided the case on 12.8.2009 of which copy was furnished to the local advocate on 13.8.2009.  On 18.8.2009, it was sent to Satna office and from there on 19.8.2009 to Zonal Office Bhopal.  From Bhopal it was sent to head office on 22.8.2009 and thereafter the appeal was processed and filed on 9.12.2009.  The real cause of delay was attributed to the resignation of the Law Officer, who without telling about the pendency of the case resigned and left the Company.

4. It is not a case where charge was not handed over to some one else and therefore, to say that the Law Officer having resigned the delay occurred, does not show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.  Application I.A. -2 for condonation of delay is

-3-

dismissed and the appeal is consequently dismissed as time barred.”

 5.     Since there was delay of 87 days only, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and remand the case to the State Commission subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the respondent by way of demand draft directly in his name who is present today in this Commission alongwith his advocate.

6.      We have also read the order of the District Forum.  It is difficult to fathom as to how he can delegate his power to the opposite party.  He should have decided the case himself with the clear cut directions.  The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21.10.2013.  The State Commission will hear the parties after satisfying that costs stands paid to the respondent/complainant.