$~14

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11438/2025

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Dhruv Sharma, Mr. Ritwik Mohapatra, Mr. Vardaan Wanchoo, Ms. Priya Patel & Mr. Shreesh

Chadha, Advocates.

versus

VASHISHT MANPOWER PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Kartikaya Kumar with Mr. Ketan

K. Roy and Mr. Santosh K. Yadav,

Advocates. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

1. The State Commission seems to have dismissed the appeal on account of delay having been not properly explained. The said order has been affirmed in revision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC).

2. Paragraph no.6 of the NCDRC order is extracted as under:

“6. The bench has perused the impugned Order in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel but it finds that the submission made by the learned counsel have been adequately dealt with in the impugned Order and the State Commission did not find any good reason to accept the same. It was taken a note by the ..State Commission that the District Commission had passed its Order on

16.08.2013 while the appeal in the State Commission was filed on 24.05.2014 with a delay of 201 days. The District Commission's Order shows that despite service through registered post, none appeared for the petitioner and that is why the petitioner / opposite party was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The State Commission was of the view that cogent reasons for the unawareness of the pronouncement of Order were not forthcoming and it has also taken note of the fact that as per the petitioner's own admission, it did come to know about the passing of Order on 18.03.2014 when its account was attached and the money was withdrawn. But then thereafter how and why it took 67 days in filing of the appeal before the State Commission remains unexplained. Relevant portion from the State Commission's Order in this regard may be quoted herein below:

Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the time for filing the present appeal had expired on 16.09.2013. The Appellant had failed to give any cogent reasons for the unawareness of the pronouncement of the impugned order by the District Forum. The Appellant failed to explain as to why no immediate steps were taken by it when the impugned order was known to them on 18.03.2014. It is not explained by the Appellant as to why it took about 67 days to file the present appeal from 18.03.2014 i.e. the date on which the Appellant came to know about the impugned order. It was for the appellant to disclose the specific date as to when the pronouncement of order was known to it, how much time it took them to obtain the certified copy, how much time it took to draft the appeal, how much time it took to take approvals from concerned department etc. However, no specific dates have been mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay filed by the applicant/appellant. Therefore, it is abundantly clear from the above that the appellant was moving at his own pace unmindful that the appeal is to be filed within

30 days from the date of order.”

3. Even before the Revisional Court, the delay was not properly explained and it is for this reason, the NCDRC in paragraph no.9 records as under:

“ 9. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has once again reiterated the submissions made before the State Commission but has simply failed to point out any substantial reasons on the basis of which impugned Order may be reproached or be castigated for being afflicted with any kind of jurisdictional error. Learned counsel has also not been able to show any material irregularity in the impugned Order and he has once again tried to persuade the Bench to reappraise all the facts and re-enter into them afresh. Even though such approach is not warranted under the law but in order to satisfy itself the Bench has gone through the entire record all over ag