By this petition, the original complainant challenges order rendered by the State Commission in First Appeal No.1935 of 2007. By that order, the State Commission was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the order rendered by the District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri, in complaint case No.1248 of 2006.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the observations of the State Commission, it is manifest that the State Commission was of the view that the complaint was barred by limitation and as such District Consumer Forum should not have taken cognizance thereof. The State Commission held that complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission observed, while passing the impugned order, as follows:
“In order to cover up the delay in filing of the present complaint, the complainant has taken the shelter of filing civil suit and subsequent withdrawal of the same with permission to file the present complaint. But it is not the case of the complainant that he had submitted and application for seeking condonation of delay in filing of the present complaint. Mere permission granted by the Civil court cannot be presumed that the complainant has been granted the benefit of delay in filing of the present complaint before the district Consumer Forum, unless the complainant moved any application in this regard.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out from the order dated 3.11.2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum that the delay was condoned inasmuch as it was held that the cause of action was continued one. It is also clear from the said order dated 3.11.2006 that an application for condonation of the delay was filed by the petitioner and the same was allowed before registration of the complaint and notice was issued to the respondent for appearance on 13.12.2006. There is nothing on record to show that this order of the District Consumer Forum was challenged by the respondents or that was subsequently reviewed by the District Forum. Needless to say above quoted observations of the State Commission are patently incorrect and therefore, there is no alternative than to remit the matter to the State Commission for afresh consideration, keeping all the questions open inclusive of the question pertaining to legality of condonation of the delay by the District Consumer Forum.
In view of the forgoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the State Commission with direction to restore the first appeal to its original position to decide it afresh on merits keeping all legal and factual question open for determination.
| 
