We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The complaint therein in CC No. 09 of 2009 came to be dismissed by the State Commission on account of delay because it was found that the same was filed after more than two years from the date of alleged cause of action. It appears from the impugned order that the contention of the appellant was recorded and the State Commission rejected such contentions for the reason that mere writing of the letters by the appellant could not have stopped running of the limitation period. The appellant relied upon observation in Suvarnalata Vs. Mohan Anandrao Deshmukh & Anr. (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 509. The State Commission held that the Supreme Court had condoned the delay as it was the time consumed in perusing the review petition filed by Suvarnalata. It appears that the Respondent did not file the reply to the delay condonation application because the impugned order does not receive any consideration of the stand taken by the Respondent. Mr. Tripathi, Advocate has invited our attention to the observations in “Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. & Anr.” (2009) CPJ 75 (SC). The Supreme Court, no doubt, held that the reply of the insurance company to the legal notice, declining to issue claim forms, could not result in extension of the limitation period and therefore the complaint which was filed in 1997 was held as barred by limitation because the instance had occurred on 22nd/23rd March, 1988. It may be noticed that in case of “Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. & Anr.” (Supra), there was no application filed for condonation of delay. Hence, the observation in the given case cannot be made applicable to the fact situation of the present case because in the present case there was an application filed by the appellant for condonation of day. Faced with the above difficulty, both the Learned counsel for the parties consent for remand of the matter for afresh consideration of the delay condonation application and that the Respondent may be given due opportunity to file reply to such application. By consent, we allow the appeal and set aside impugned judgment and order of the State Commission with the following directions: -- (I) The complaint be restored to its original position. The Respondent may be permitted to file reply to the delay condonation application, if it is not so filed and if it is so filed, then to file further reply, if any. (II) The State Commission shall decide the delay condonation application afresh and if the delay is found to be condonable as provided under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, then the complaint may be registered and proceeded further on merits. The contention of both the sides are kept open. (III) The delay condonation application to be decided by the State Commission within a period of four months after the date of first appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 05-07-2011. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. | 
