PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.3.2015 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Misc. Appln No. 270/2015 in Appeal No. 168/2015 – Blossoms Senior Secondary School Vs. M/s. Educomp Solutions Ltd. & Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum against OP/respondents which was dismissed by order dated 22.9.2014. Complainant filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed application for condonation of delay and in turn dismissed appeal as barred by limitation against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. As there is delay of only one day in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as petitioner was not intimated by his Counsel about order of District forum and also not received copy, learned State Commission ought to have condoned delay in filing appeal and has committed illegality in dismissing appeal as barred limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission for disposal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. In application for condonation of delay filed before State Commission, petitioner mentioned that he did not receive copy of order dated 22.9.2014 passed by District Forum and his Counsel also did not inform regarding status of the case and only in first week of February, 2015, through reliable sources he came to know about dismissal of complaint. Then he applied for certified copy which was received on 5.2.2015 and appeal was filed on 10.2.2015 along with application. Affidavit of authorized representative of petitioner was also filed before State Commission. Learned State Commission observed that as per endorsement on the certified copy issued by District Forum, free copy was issued on 30.9.2014; so, it was presumed that free copy was issued on 30.9.2014 and as there is no explanation for delay, application for condonation of delay was dismissed. In the impugned order it has nowhere been mentioned that free copy was received by petitioner. Petitioner has denied receipt of free copy. Not only this, learned State Commission has not made any observation whether free copy was sent by ordinary post or registered post and whether it was delivered to the party or his Counsel. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to disbelieve affidavit of petitioner’s authorized representative, who submitted that neither copy was received, nor his Counsel intimated about status of the case. It is just possible that District forum might have given free copy of order to Counsel for the complainant, who might not have intimated to the complainant about dismissal of complaint as it was dismissed even in absence of OP and in such circumstances, delay occurred in filing appeal which should have been condoned. Complainant obtained certified copy of District Forum order on 5.2.2015 and he filed appeal on 10.2.2015, i.e., within five days of obtaining certified copy. In such circumstances, in the light of latest judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 – Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr; (2) Civil Appeal No. 10289 of 2014 – A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India; and (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 – Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. by which delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively in filing revision petition was condoned on cost, we deem it appropriate to condone delay in filing appeal before State Commission subject to cost and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission for disposal on merits. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 26.3.2015 passed by the learned State Commission in Misc. Appln No. 270/2015 in Appeal No. 168/2015 – Blossoms Senior Secondary School Vs. M/s. Educomp Solutions Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and application for condonation of delay filed before learned State Commission is allowed and delay stands condoned subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the respondent on or before the appearance before the learned State Commission and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 8. Parties are directed to appear before learned State Commission on 11.7.2016. | 
