NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1474/2025 (Against the Order dated 16th May 2019 in Appeal SC/6/A/1063/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana)

WITH NC/IA/14005/2025 (STAY)

NC/IA/14004/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)

NC/IA/15710/2025 (EARLY HEARING IN ADMISSION HEARING)

NC/IA/14006/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

MUTHOOT LEASING & FINANCE LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - K-24, FIRST FLOOR 3CS ROAD LAJPAT NAGAR.SOUTH EAST,DELHI.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus SARVESH SHARMA PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE MANDKOL, P.S. JANOLI TEHSIL PALWAL, DISTT.

FARIDABAD, HR. FARIDABAD,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. S.S. SOBTI, ADVOCATE WITH MR. SUNIL BHARTWAL, AUTH. REP.

DATED: 07/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 09.11.2022 in Misc. Application No. 165 of 2019, passed in First Appeal No.1063 of 2017 by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula, (for short the ‘State Commission’), arising out of the order dated 08.07.2004 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short the ‘District Forum’) in Complaint Case No.255 of 2000.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/14006/2025 (clarification of delay) and also on the Memo of Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the office has wrongly calculated a delay of 1988 days in filing of the present revision petition, because the impugned order challenged herein, was passed on 09.11.2022, whereby the Misc. Application No.168 of 2019 was dismissed by the concerned State Commission. That MA was moved for restoration / recall of order passed in First Appeal No.1063 of 2017. The appeal was dismissed in default on 16.05.2019. He further submitted that after passing of the order dated 09.11.2022, the certified copy of the same was handed over to the petitioner on 24.10.2024. Thereafter, the present revision petition was filed. Hence this revision petition is within time and the office report is erroneous.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. The Registry has reported in this matter a delay of 1988 days based on the calculation that the impugned order was passed on 16.05.2019. In fact, the order dated 09.11.2022 was passed on the Misc. Application, which was moved to set aside the order passed on 16.05.2019, dismissing the appeal. This Misc. Application was dismissed on

09.11.2022.

6. Thus, indirectly the order under challenge is passed on 16.05.2019.

7. Perusal of the order dated 16.05.2019 shows that the petitioner/ appellant remained absent consecutively on three dates, therefore, the appeal was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the petitioner / appellant filed the restoration application being Misc. Application No.168/2019 for restoration of the appeal but, that was dismissed by the learned State Commission, observing that the State Commission has no power to restore the appeal. That order was passed on 09.11.2022. As perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant remained negligent in contesting the appeal before the learned State Commission and he did not appear consecutively for three dates. There appears no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders dated 16.05.2019 as well as in 09.11.2022.

8. As far as the delay is concerned, there is a huge delay even after passing of the order in Misc. Application. Hence, this revision petition is also time-barred and the reasons mentioned in the delay condonation application in IA/14006/2025 are not convincing and sufficient to condone the delay.

9. Therefore, the present revision is dismissed as time-barred and also lacking merit