PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.07.2008 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1412 of 2008 M/s. Ananth Raj Industries Ltd. Vs. Rathnakar Kanchan by which, while dismissing appeal as barred by limitation, order of District Forum allowing complaint was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is shareholder of OP/petitioner and was possessing 100 equity shares. As the original certificates had been lost, complainant applied for issuance of duplicate shares. OP asked complainant to execute relevant documents. Complainant sent relevant documents but inspite of that, OP did not issue duplicate shares. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint. OP did not appear before District Forum even after service and OP was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP to issue duplicate share certificates and further awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission by impugned order, as appeal was filed after 129 days and further dismissed appeal on merits also against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Respondent did not appear and informed the Commission that the matter may be decided. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after ex-parte order, petitioner moved application to District Forum for setting aside ex-parte order, which was dismissed by order dated 8.4.2008 and appeal was filed on 31.7.2008 along with application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal being barred by 129 days; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 6. Perusal of record reveals that learned District Forum passed ex-parte order on 31.1.2008 and petitioner sent application for setting aside ex-parte order which was dismissed on 8.4.2008 and afterwards, appeal was filed before State Commission on 31.7.2008. If we count limitation from the order dated 8.4.2008 then it appears that appeal was filed after about 82 days and it was not filed with delay of 129 days. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, primate facie; complainant does not fall within purview of consumer, as no service charges have been collected by the petitioner and further submitted that as original share certificates along with duly executed and attested transfer deed have been sent by Mr. Somnath to the petitioner, petitioner could not have issued duplicate certificate in favour of OP. In such circumstances, delay in filing appeal may be condoned. 8. Apparently, there is delay of 82 days in filing appeal, but looking to the issues whether; the petitioner falls within the purview of consumer or whether; duplicate share certificates could have issued when petitioner was in possession of original share certificates along with duly executed transfer deed, learned State Commission should have condoned delay and decided appeal on merits. 9. Consequently, revision petition allowed and impugned order dated 31.7.2008 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1412 of 2008 M/s. Anant Raj Industries Ltd. Vs. Rathnakar Kanchan is set aside and application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before State Commission is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost by the petitioner to respondent and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits after treating delay as condoned, after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Petitioner should dispose transfer request made by Somnath. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 26.11.2013.