IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI NC/FA/525/2025 (Against the order dated 03.10.2023 and 19.03.2024 in Complaint Case No. 487/2016 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

WITH NC/IA/13050, 13051 & 13052/2025 (Stay, Condonation Of Delay, Exemption from dim documents)

Dr. P. K. Sen … Appellant Versus Amit Koner & Ors. … Respondents BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sumaiya Kalim, Advocate For Respondents : None for R-1 & R-2 Service not complete to R-3 Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate for R-4 Dated: 09.01.2026

ORDER

1. The present proceedings were registered as an Appeal under the order dated 26.09.2025. Notices were issued on the delay condonation application that has been filed stating that the appellant had been bonafidely, under a mistaken belief, pursing a recall application which consumed some time before the State Commission. These facts have been stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the application. The said recall application was rejected on 19.03.2024. It is thereafter that the present compilation was filed as a Revision Petition and it was ultimately found that the orders were appealable, and consequently the present compilation was directed to be registered as an Appeal vide order dated 26.09.2025.

2. The orders under challenge in this appeal are in effect the orders dated

19.03.2024 and 03.10.2023.

3. Both these orders have been passed on interlocutory applications. The occasion for filing the applications have been discussed in detail by the State Commission in its order dated 03.10.2023 as well as the order dated 19.03.2024. Instead of narrating the details, it would be appropriate to simply reproduce the impugned orders which correctly record the facts while disposing off the applications.

4. At the outset and for the sake of convenience, we extract the order dated 03.10.2023 passed on I.A. No. 28/2023 in CC No. 487 of 2016:

5. A perusal of the order indicates that the appellant’s right to tender his evidence affidavit was closed on 16.03.2020 due to the non-appearance of his lawyer and not having filed the evidence in spite of repeated opportunities having been given to him. I.A. No. 28/2023 giving rise to the impugned order was filed on 10.01.2023 praying for extending an opportunity to file his evidence by accordingly modifying the order dated 16.03.2020. While declining to accept the said request, the State Commission has made an observation that the District Commission and State Commission have no power to alter, modify or set aside its own order. This observation seems to have been made keeping in view the fact that the complaint was filed in the year 2016 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where the State Commission and the District Commission had no power to review or recall. However the said observations may be questionable, but the fact remains that the appellant had moved the application in 2023 for modifying an order of 16.03.2020 and for reopening his opportunity to file evidence in a complaint which was pending since 2016 in spite of repeated opportunities which he failed to avail for long. On these facts we find no error having been committed by the State Commission, so as to entertain this appeal for questioning the correctness of the said order at the interlocutory stage. We therefore decline to interfere with the said order at this stage without prejudice to the appellants to contest this position, if at all necessary, after the matter is finally disposed off by the State Commission. We therefore decline any relief in respect of the order dated 03.10.2023 impugned herein.

6. I.A. No. 100/2024 was moved for entertaining a reply stated to have been filed by the appellant in respect of the questionnaires raised by the complainant and also for countering the evidence affidavit of the complainant. It is this application which has