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 10.04.2023 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.385 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the District Commission in Complaint No.1116 of 2012.

2.       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant and for the respondent / opposite party.  Perused the material on record including inter alia the Order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 10.04.2023  passed by the State Commission, application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission and the memo of petition.

3.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner / complainant had never received any free certified copy said to have been sent by the District Commission and that was the reason the petitioner / complainant had to apply for the certified copy of the Order passed by the District Commission on its own. The certified copy of the District Commission was procured on 07.06.2019 which is also the date shown in the certified copy. Submission is that after procuring the certified copy necessary steps were taken to file the appeal and the same was filed before the State Commission on 05.07.2019. It has also been submitted that actually in the delay condonation application that was moved before the State Commission it was an inadvertent error to write that there was a delay of 18 days while actually there was none. The District Commission had passed its Order on 01.04.2019 and though reckoning the period of limitation form the date of Order, the same shall end on 01.05.2019 while the appeal was filed on 05.07.2019 before the State Commission. But as the petitioner / complainant had never received the free certified copy of the District Commission’s Order, the period of limitation must be counted from the date of acquisition of its knowledge or the date when it procured the certified copy of the District Commission’s order on its own behalf. Submission is that at any rate the said delay involved in the matter was not so inordinate which ought not to have been condoned by the State Commission. It has been submitted that in the matter like this where there was hardly any delay, the certified copy having been received on 07.06.2019, the appeal ought to have been heard by the State Commission on merits rather than scuttle the same on the point of limitation and that too after ignoring the fact that the certified copy of the District Commission’s order was procured by the petitioner / complainant on 07.06.2019 and not before it. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that free certified copy of the District Commission’s Order was received by the petitioner earlier ever.

4.       Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / opposite party has submitted that the State Commission has passed a reasoned Order and according to it there was no sufficient cause to justify the delay. Submission is that there is no good reason to interfere in the State Commission’s Order.             

5.       Perused the material in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides at the Bar.

6.       Certified copy of the District Commission’s Order dated 01.04.2019 available on record indicates that the same was made ready on 07.06.2019. The appeal was filed before the State Commission on 05.07.2019 within the limitation period. There is nothing on record to indicate that free certified copy was received by the petitioner / complainant earlier. Even if the Bench goes by the reasoning adopted by the State Commission, the period of delay comes to be less than 60 days which in the light of the explanations offered appears to be well-explained. It is thus deemed appropriate to observe that the said delay involved in filing of the appeal before the State Commission ought to have b