ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the ‘Act’) against impugned order dated 18.09.2023, passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No.A/70/2022 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal being barred by limitation.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant contended that the delay in filing the First Appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. The learned State Commission ought to have condoned the marginal delay in filing the Appeal and decided the matter on merits. He contended that the petitioner has a very strong case on merit and therefore, sought to allow the present Revision Petition and the impugned order passed by the State Commission be set aside. The Petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

i. Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari and Ors., 1968 SCC OnLine SC 139;

ii . The State of West Bengal vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Ors., (1972) I Supreme Court Cases 366;

iii. Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 279;

iv. Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors., (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 336;

v. Sumit Kumar Saha vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 370.

3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/OP argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission and asserted that the Respondent/OP has already paid the claim of the complainant as assessed by the surveyor. He further argued that the appeal which was filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation and therefore he sought dismissal of the Revision Petition with costs.

4. Heard the learned counsels and examined the records.

5. The reasons for delay in the M.A. No.148 of 2022 seeking Condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal No.70/2022 filed before the State Commission given as under:

“1. That the Applicant/ appellant have filed the accompanying appeal against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No. 229/2016 wherein the complaint file by the applicant has been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum Mandi, H.P. The said appeal is barred by around 517 days.

2. That the applicant appellant most humbly submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor intentional but for the facts and reasons mentioned hereinafter.

3. That the applicant filed the consumer complaint no. 299/2016 before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, HP in the year 2016 against the non applicant and diligently pursued it before the Ld. Forum through his advocate till the year 2018 i.e. .19.11.2018, when the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed by the L.d. District Forum.

4. That as is evident from the certified copy of the order dated 19.11.2018, the date of preparation is 24.11.2018 and the date of issuance is 26.11.2018. That it is further submitted that the copy of the order dated 19.11.2018 was received by the applicant on or about 29/30.11.2018.

5. That after receiving the copy of the order dated 19.11.2018 vide which the complaint as filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Ld. Forum below by taking hyper technical view and on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the applicant contacted his counsel and visited his office, who had conducted the case at Mandi. The counsel told the applicant that since the complaint has been wrongly dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, it has to be challenged by way of appeal before the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission at Shimla as arguable points arise in this case. The counsel also handed over the entire case record/file to the applicant.

6. That thereafter, the applicant in the month of December itself for the purpose of filing appe