ORDER

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Order dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772 of 2016 is set aside. The appeal is treated as filed within time. The State Commission is directed to decide the case on merits in accordance with law.”

IV. Judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1705 of 2023 titled as M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs.

Harpreet Kaur ( Against the Order dated 10/07/2023 in Appeal No. A/249/2023 of the State Commission Delhi ), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under: -

“Above revision petition has been filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 13.04.2023 and the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 10.07.2023 whereby the appeal has been dismissed as time barred. Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the illegality of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission only. In the present case, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint by the order dated 11.04.2022. Thereafter, review application was allowed on 18.10.2022 and thereafter, the complaint was decided by the order dated 13.04.2023. The appellant filed the present ALLOWED Page 15 of 18 appeal before the State Commission against the order dated 13.04.2023 on 01.06.2023 along with IA/1311/2023 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the condonation of delay application, it has been stated that the free copy was not received to the appellant. The appellant only received copy when the counsel for the complainant sent its copy on 25.04.2023. Thereafter, the appellant applied for issue of certified copy on 25.05.2023 and it was received on the same day and the appeal was filed on 01.06.2023. It was within 45 days from the knowledge of the order. Therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned but the condonation of delay has been rejected and the appeal has been dismissed as time barred.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has relied upon the dispatch no.

DCDRC/ND/463-64 by which free copy was dispatched to the parties but the State Commission has failed to note that the address of the appellant was not correctly mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the free copy was not received by the appellant as stated by the appellant. In these circumstances, disbelieving the version of the petitioner only without examining whether the address mentioned on the dispatch was correct or not, is not correct.

ORDER In the result, the order is liable to be set aside. Revision is allowed. The order of the State Commission dated 10.07.2023 dismissing FA/245/2023 is set aside. Condonation of delay application i.e. IA/1311/2023 is allowed, and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. State Commission is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.”

V. Judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 1711 of 2023 titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. S.B. Mittal & Ors.

(Against the Order dated 13/04/2023 in Appeal No. FA/72/2022 of the State Commission Delhi ), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under: -

“1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

2. The above revision has been filed against the order of The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 13.04.2023, whereby the appeal of the ALLOWED Page 16 of 18 petitioner has been dismissed as delay condonation application has been rejected.

3. A perusal of the impugned order of the State Commission shows that the impugned order of the Distr