1. Counsel for the parties present. 2. Vakalatnama filed by the learned counsel for the respondent is taken on record. 3. Arguments heard. 4. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a delay of 33 days. The petitioner had moved an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. The delay has been explained. The District Forum delivered the order on 27.02.2012. The petitioner received the copy of the order after six days. Thereafter on 09.03.2012, the copy was sent to the insurance company. On 14.03.2012 the said order was sent to the Head Office situated at Pune. The same was received by the Head Office, Pune by 19.03.2012. Final decision was taken by the head office on 26.03.2012 to file an appeal and the same was received on 29.03.2012. Due to the annual financial closing the appeal could not be filed immediately and it was filed only on 30.04.2012. 5. It is apparent that appellant was wee bit negligent in filing the appeal. It is clear that whenever there is a delay the blame lies with the petitioner. If the delay is not very long it can be condoned by payment of adequate costs. The petitioner is an insurance company and they took some time in filing the appeal. In N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, it was held: 1. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, they can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for this loss 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that costs of Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Commission on 10.10.2012 has been paid. 7. Consequently, we accept the revision petition and condone the delay, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- which will be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under section 12 (3) read with Rule 10 (a) of the C P Act, 1986 of the Central Excise Act 1944 within one month from today, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14th February 2013 who will hear the appeal on merits after satisfying that the above said costs stand paid. Receipt be produced before the State Commission.