Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 885 of 2006, the Muwana Janta Cooperative Society Ltd., the original complainant in the complaint before the District Forum has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind dated 17.02.2006 by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the respondent Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.44,699/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation of the amount to the complainant besides awarding litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. The State Commission going by the plea of the Insurance Company that the complaint filed was barred by time, having been filed several years after the peril, answered the plea in favour of the Insurance Company, consequently, allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 2. We have heard Mr. Yogesh Chhabra, counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Chandra Kumari, K.C. counsel for the respondent and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances which led to filing of the complaint are amply noted in the order of the District Forum and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised by the present petitioner was in regard to non-settlement of its insurance claim in respect of a motor vehicle which met with an accident during the currency of the policy. The claim was repudiated inter alia on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation as also that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date and time of the occurrence of accident in which the vehicle was damaged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the findings and observations made by the State Commission primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances, much less correct appreciation of the record of proceedings of the District Forum, while holding that the complaint was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay was moved on behalf of the complainant while filing the complaint. Reference has been made to the proceedings dated 1.10.2003 and 15.10.2003 recorded by the District Forum, which we would like to extract herein:- eard on application for condonation of delay. The contents made in the application are very much genuine. Hence the said application is hereby allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. Now to come up on 14.11.2003 for service on O.P. on filing regd. cover. 4. This would show that the complainant being mindful of the fact that he had been pursuing its remedy in regard to the insurance claim relating to the damage to the vehicle in question before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, filed the complaint before the District Forum alongwith application for condonation of delay which in the given facts and circumstances was allowed by the District Forum and, in our opinion, rightly so. It appears that the State Commission overlooked this important factual position and was largely guided by the submissions made from the side of the insurance company about the complaint being barred by limitation by observing as under:- t cannot be disputed that the limitation period for filing complaint under the onsumer Protection Act, has been prescribed two years from the date of ause of action No doubt, in the instant case the ause of actionarose on 23.08.1995. Therefore, the complaint filed after more than 8 years was not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 24-A of the Act, 1986. It is specifically provided under section 24-A of the Act, 1986 that the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission while admitting the complaint is required to dismiss the complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum that he had ufficient causefor not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date of ause of action In the present case, it is not the stand of the complainant that he had submitted any application before the District Forum for condonation of delay beyond the period of two years for entertaining the complaint. Thus, the District Forum committed error in entertaining the complaint. 5. Having considered the matter its entirety, we are of the view that the State Commission fell in a grave error of fact and law in allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company on the question of limitation. This was resulted into miscarriage of justice as the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has not been considered on its merits. For the above-stated reasons, we consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to partly allow the present revision petition and set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remit the appeal to the Board of the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh on the merits. The question of limitation will no longer be open for discussion before the State Commission as the District Forum in its wisdom and discretion had condoned the delay in filing the complaint which, in our opinion, was a just order going by the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.08.2012.