ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenging the impugned Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 476 of 2019 arising out from the Order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the District Commission in Complaint No. 380 of 2013.

2.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant as well as for the respondent no.1 / opposite party no1 and the respondent no. 2 / opposite party no.2. Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the State Commission, the application seeking condonation of delay moved before the State Commission and the memo of petition.

3.       It appears that the petitioner a complaint was filed before the District Commission which was partly allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the State Commission by the petitioner / complainant but the appeal was filed with some delay and the same was dismissed on the point of limitation. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

4.       It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant that the District Commission had passed its order on 13.06.2019 and the certified copy of the same was received on 29.06.2019 itself. Thus there was some delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was filed before the State Commission on 04.09.2019. According to the State   Commission the appeal was filed with delay of 37 days. Submission is that the petitioner / complainant is a poor person having serious financial stringency. The petitioner is also an illiterate person. For a person placed in such handicapped position having all sort of practical constraints and difficulties, the matter ought to have been approached with empathy and the hard-pressed circumstances  ought to have been in perspective while dealing with the issue of delay. Submission is that it took some time in arranging the money towards the fee of advocate and only when the same could be arranged that some time was further taken by the counsel to prepare the appeal and as such the aforesaid delay got occasioned. Submission is that the State Commission took a rather strict view of the matter and instead of condoning the delay which was not so large or disproportionate, dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation. Submission is that the petitioner / complainant has a good cause to plead and if an opportunity of being heard on merits shall not be provided, then the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and shall be left remediless. It has been submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the short delay involved in the matter deserved to be condoned but the State Commission did not properly exercise its jurisdiction which makes the impugned Order judiciously vulnerable.

5.       Leaned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 / opposite party no.1. In all fairness and grace has expressed its no objection submitting that the delay involved in the matter may be condoned and the matter may be remitted back to the State Commission to be heard on merits.

          Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 / opposite party no. 2 has also adopted the same approach by expressing its no objection if the matter is remitted back to the State Commission to be heard on merits after condoning the delay.           

6.       Without expressing anything upon inherent merits of the case, when this Bench considers the period of delay involved and the explanation offered on behalf of the petitioner / complainant which according to it caused the delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission and while this Bench also keeps in perspective the no objections expressed on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for both the respondents no.1 and no.2, it finds that there is good reason to hold that th