ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present application is filed under proviso of section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for condonation of delay of 136 (One hundred thirty six) days in filing appeal. Brief facts of matter: 2. Complainant Brij Mohan Chauhan filed consumer complaint No. 60/2016 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties which was decided on dated 22.03.2017. Complainant sought relief against opposite parties to pay own damage claim of Rs. 63160/- (Sixty three thousand one hundred sixty) alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of accident and complainant also sought additional relief of compensation for mental harassment to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (Twenty five thousand). In addition complainant also sought additional relief of litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand). Consumer complaint filed by complainant was resisted by the opposite parties. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 63160/-(Sixty three thousand one hundred sixty) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to pay Rs. 10000/-(Ten thousand) to complainant for mental harassment. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to pay Rs. 3000/- (Three thousand) as litigation costs. 3. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum insurance company filed present appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before State Commission. 4. Applicants filed application for condonation of delay pleaded therein that certified copy of order dated 22.03.2017 was sent to the office of applicants by learned advocate in the last week of July 2017. It is pleaded that learned advocate was asked to explain the delay in sending certified copy of order to the applicants. It is further pleaded that advocate submitted that inadvertently clerk did not send certified copy of order to the applicants. It is further pleaded that after receipt of certified copy of order the certified copy was sent to the office of applicants at Chandigarh and approval was sought to file appeal. It is pleaded that opinion of advocate was sought and thereafter competent authority had given approval to file appeal on 22.08.2017. It is pleaded that cheque of appeal amount was received from the Head Office on dated 07.09.2017. It is pleaded that opinion of advocate was sought and thereafter competent authority had given approval to file appeal on 22.08.2017. It is pleaded that cheque of appeal amount was received from the Head Office on dated 07.09.2017. It is further pleaded that delay in filing appeal was not intentional in nature but was bonafide in nature. Prayer for condonation of delay sought. 5. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-applicant pleaded therein that applicants were negligent in filing the appeal. It is further pleaded that applicants have not explained sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Prayer for rejection of application sought. 6. We have heard learned advocates for applicants and non-applicant. 7. Following points arise for determination in present application. 1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to condone the delay of 136 (One hundred thirty six) days in filing appeal as alleged in the memorandum of grounds of application? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8. Applicants filed affidavit Ex.A-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is working as Manager (Legal) in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. There is further recital in the affidavit that delay in filing appeal be condoned in view of reasons mentioned in paras No. 3 & 4 of condonation application. 9. Non-applicant filed affidavit Ex.NA-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that response filed by non-applicant be treated as evidence of non-applicant. 10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicants that delay in filing appeal was bonafide in nature and not intentional in nature is decided accordingly. The fact that clerk of advocate did not send certified copy of order to the applicants remained unrebutted on record. It is well settled law that party could not be penalized for the fault of advocate or his clerk. See AIR 1972 SC 749 State of West Bengal vs. The Administrator Howrah Municipality & Ors. See 1994 (2) CPC 197 NC Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Society & Ors. Hon''ble Apex Court of India in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 (DB) titled Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and others held that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Hon''ble Apex Court of India in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 (DB) titled Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and others held that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay would result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. It was held that when delay is condoned the highest that would happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing parties. (3) Every day''s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be adopted. (4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other then cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. (5) A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. (6) Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice to the parties and judiciary is expected to do so. State Commission is of the opinion that appeal would be disposed of on merits after hearing the parties. State Commission is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to non-applicant if appeal would be disposed of on merits after hearing the parties. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicant that delay was intentional in nature and not bonafide in nature is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that applicants could not be penalized for the fault of advocate or his clerk. State Commission is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the nonapplicant in case delay in filing appeal is condoned because due opportunity would be given to the non-applicant to address the State Commission on merits. State Commission is of the opinion that non-applicant would be compensated with heavy costs for non-filing appeal within time. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application filed for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application filed for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice. Observations will not effect merits of appeal in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of application filed for condonation of delay. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. M.A. No.747/2017 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.