JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, President 1. Present application is filed for condonation of delay of 74 days (Seventy four) days in filing appeal. Brief facts of Consumer Complaint: 2. Complainant Rakesh Kumar filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased tractor in consideration amount of Rs.630000/- (Six lac thirty thousand) on dated 27.12.2013 from opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that tractor was manufactured by opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that defect occurred in the tractor within three days after purchase. It is further pleaded that engine oil of tractor started leaking. It is further pleaded that front wheels of the tractor were not balanced properly and tractor was not able to pull the tiller/plough in the soil as it was not having sufficient power. Matter was reported to the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not rectify the defect. Thereafter consumer complaint was filed. Opposite parties contested consumer complaint. 3. Learned District Forum ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to return the tractor to the complainant after removing all the defects within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that in alternative opposite parties would jointly and severally pay sum of Rs.630000/- (Six lac thirty thousand) alongwith interest to the complainant w.e.f. 31.12.2013 till realization. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to pay Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) as punitive compensation to the complainant. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand). 4. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum opposite party No.2 filed present appeal alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before State Commission. 5. Applicant pleaded that applicant engaged advocate and learned advocate assured applicant that applicant would be informed about the date of hearing before learned District Forum. It is further pleaded that in the first week of January 2017 when applicant through his manager contacted learned advocate at Una H.P. and inquired about the date of consumer complaint then applicant was informed by learned advocate that consumer complaint was finally disposed of by learned District Forum on dated 14.09.2016. It is further pleaded that learned advocate also told that he had directed his clerk to inform the applicant about final disposal of consumer complaint by learned District Forum. It is further pleaded that learned advocate also told that he had directed his clerk to inform the applicant about final disposal of consumer complaint by learned District Forum. It is further pleaded that clerk informed his advocate that he did not inform the applicant about final decision of consumer complaint by learned District Forum. It is further pleaded that thereafter applicant obtained certified copy of order and filed present appeal before State Commission. It is further pleaded that delay was bonafide in nature and not intentional in nature. Prayer for condonation of delay sought. 6. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-applicant No.1 pleaded therein that applicant has blamed learned advocate and his clerk but no affidavits of learned advocate and clerk filed. It is further pleaded that delay has not been explained properly by the applicant and it is further pleaded that delay is intentional in nature and not bonafide in nature. Prayer for rejection of condonation of limitation application sought. 7. We have heard learned advocates for the parties and we have also perused the entire record carefully. 8. 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 74 (Seventy four) days in filing appeal as alleged in the memorandum of grounds of application? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 9. Applicant filed affidavit of Shri Krishan Sharma authorized representative Ex.A-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that applicant was not in touch with the learned advocate after June 2016. There is further recital in the affidavit that learned advocate engaged by applicant told the applicant that he would inform the applicant about the date of hearing of District Forum. There is further recital in the affidavit that in the first week of January 2017 when applicant contacted his advocate at Una H.P. then advocate told that consumer complaint was finally disposed of by the learned District Forum on dated 14.09.2016. There is further recital in the affidavit that advocate also informed the applicant that advocate had directed his clerk to inform the applicant about the final order passed by learned District Forum. There is further recital in the affidavit that clerk of learned advocate told that he forgot to inform the applicant. There is further recital in the affidavit that advocate also informed the applicant that advocate had directed his clerk to inform the applicant about the final order passed by learned District Forum. There is further recital in the affidavit that clerk of learned advocate told that he forgot to inform the applicant. There is further recital in the affidavit that delay is not intentional in nature but bonafide in nature. 10. After obtaining evidence of applicant by way of affidavit State Commission listed the case for evidence of nonapplicant No.1 by way of affidavit on 09.01.2018. Thereafter case was listed for evidence of non-applicant No.1 on dated 07.03.2018. On 07.03.2018 learned advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicant No.1 submitted before State Commission that non-applicant does not want to lead any rebuttal evidence and present application be disposed of on merits. 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that delay in filing the appeal was bonafide in nature and not intentional in nature is decided accordingly. Applicant has filed affidavit Ex.A-1 in support of contentions. Affidavit filed by applicant remained unrebutted on record. Contesting non-applicant No.1 did not file any rebuttal evidence by way of affidavits. It is well settled law that party could not be penalized for the fault of advocate. See State of West Bengal Versus The Administrator Howrah Municipality & Ors , (1972) AIR SC 749. See NC Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Consumer Education and Research Society & Ors, 1994 2 CPC 197. It was held by Hon''ble Apex Court of India in case reported in (DB) titled Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. Versus Mst. Katiji and others , (1987) AIR SC 1353, 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 would be condoned the highest that would happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the 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. (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 contesting non-applicant if the appeal would be disposed of on merits after hearing the parties. In view of law citedand in view of the fact that contesting non-applicant did not adduce any rebuttal evidence by way of affidavit and in view of the fact that affidavit filed by applicant remained unrebutted on record State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to condone the delay in filing appeal. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of contesting non-applicant that delay was intentional in nature and not bonafide in nature and on this ground application filed for condonation of delay be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that non-applicant did not file any rebuttal evidence and plea of non-applicant that delay was intentional in nature is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). State Commission is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the non-applicant 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 could 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 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application filed for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- (Three 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 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above application filed for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice. Observations would not effect merits of appeal in any manner and would 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.19/2017 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.