IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3122 OF 2024 (A gainst the O rder dated 11.11.2024 in FA No. 694/2024 of the State C onsum er D isputes R edressal C om m ission, D elhi)

W ith N C /IA /17854/2024 N C /IA /17855/2024 N C /IA /17856/2024 (EXEM PTIO N FR O M FILIN G TH E C E R TIFIE D C O PY, D IR EC TIO N S, EXC EM PTIO N O F FILE TYPED C O PIES O F D O C U M EN TS)

V IJAY KU M AR P etitioner (s)

s/o Sh. A m rit Pandit r/oW P 438/4, W azirpur, A shok V ihar,D elhi-52 Versus STAR H EALTH AN D ALIIED IN SU R AN C E C O . LTD . R espondent(s)JIHGFEDCBA

66,607, 6th Floor, p-3, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector-18 N oida, U .P.-201301 BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner(s) : M r. A kshay R aj, A dvocate For the R espondent(s) N one Dated : 10.10.2025

ORDER

1.

H eard counsel for the petitioner.

2. C hallenge is to the order dated 11.11.2024 of the State C om m ission vide w hich First A ppeal filed by the P etitioner herein has been dism issed on account of lim itation having been filed w ith delay of 529 days. State C om m ission has observed that no cogent reason has been explained by the appellant to show the delay in filing the appeal.

3. The P etitioner has challenged the order of the State C om m ission on follow ing grounds :

a. C ounsel for the com plainant neither inform ed the com plainant about the last date of hearing nor appeared before the C om m ission and accordingly the abovesaid m atter w as disposed off for w ant of prosecution.

b. R evisionist had not received copy of the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the D istrict C om m ission through post , w hich is established statutory procedure and hence has no idea about disposal of the com plaint for non-prosecution.

c. It w as only on 05.04.2024, w hen com plainant enquired about the status of the case through C onfonet, he cam e to know that m atter w as disposed off for non prosecution.

d. A ggrieved by the said act on the part of his counsel, com plainant hired service of new counsel and filed restoration application before the C om m ission alongw ith certified copy of the case file.

e. C ase file of the abovesaid m atter has been m isplaced before the D istrict C om m ission and com plainant has not been able to relocate the case file and on 04.10.2024 office of staff of D istrict C om m ission utter their disability to provide the certified copy of the case file and orders to the com plainant.

f.' C om plainant also approached m any a tim e before his previous counsel and asked him to provide the case file of the abovesaid m atter but previous counsel refused to provide the case file of the abovesaid m atter to the com plainant.

4. The m ain question for consideration is w hether in the facts and circum stances of the case the State C om m ission w as justified in declining condonation of delay in filing the A ppeal and dism iss it as barred by lim itation. W e have carefully gone through the orders of the State C om m ission, other relevant records and contentions of the P etitioner herein. W e have also considered the reasons for delay as contained in the condonation of delay application filed by the petitioner herein before the State C om m ission in the light ofJIHGFEDCBA Sheo observations of H on’ble Suprem e C ourt in various cases. In Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Respresentative and Ors.

Vs. Union of India and Ann (2023) 10 SC C 531, H on'ble Suprem e C ourt observed that condonation of delay being a discretionary pow er available to courts, exercise of discretion m ust necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause show n and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the lengths of delay being im m aterial, each case for condonation of delay based on the existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land ow n facts. In Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SC C 81, the H on’ble S