NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI DIARY CASE NO. NC/DN/147/2025 WITH NC/IA/12984/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM DIM DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/14181/2025 (DIRECTIONS)

NC/IA/12983/2025 (STAY)

V.P. SPACES PRESENT ADDRESS - 114, 1ST FLOORJMD MEGAPOLIS SEC 48 , GURUGRAM,HARYANA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus SANDEEP ARORA PRESENT ADDRESS - D-53, IFS APARTMENTSMAYUR VIHAR PHASE-I , EAST,DELHI.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

MR. SARANG S. CHOWDHY, ADVOCATE MR. SHASHANK S. CHOWDHRY, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

MR. BHAAVAN MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE MR. SANDEEP ARORA (IN PERSON)

DATED: 12/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present compilation was presented as a Revision Petition but in view of the law as declared in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jyoti & Ors., NC/DN/33/2025 decided on 16.05.2025 the present compilation can only be entertained as an Appeal under Section 51 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Learned counsel has therefore appropriately moved IA/14181/2025 and has proposed substantial questions including on the issue of dismissal of the Appeal by the State Commission having not exercised its discretion to condone the delay in accordance with law apart from other issues.

2. For the purposes of record since a Revision is not maintainable as indicated above, the present compilation is entertained as an Appeal under Section 51 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the office is directed to accordingly treat it as such. The application is disposed of accordingly.

3. This is one of those appeals where we find that the learned counsel for the applicant has formulated 38 substantial questions. Even though we may not agree with the substantial questions raised as framed, yet the admission of the Appeal is dependent upon the consideration of the delay condonation matter which has to be dealt at first.

4. The appeal has been filed challenging the order of the State Commission in FA/387/2025 dated 04.09.2025 whereby it has been dismissed on the ground of 787 days of delay having not been explained. The order in the Complaint by the District Commission was passed on 19.05.2023 whereafter it proceeded ex-parte. The Appeal before the State Commission has been filed after a huge and inordinate delay on 03.09.2025. It is this issue which has been raised and purportedly made a ground of a substantial question of law in the present Appeal.

5. Coming to the merits of the substantial questions of law as proposed, it is well settled that an Appeal on a substantial question of law can be entertained only if such a question of law arises. At the outset as indicated above, the Appeal before the State Commission was dismissed on the ground of heavy and inordinate delay which remained unexplained. It has been recorded in the order that the Appellant had appeared before the District Commission with an application for filing a written statement and condoning the delay that was allowed on 15.03.2022. Later the Appellant failed to file evidence before the District Commission and accordingly the matter proceeded ex-parte on 18.10.2022. Thus, the entire proceedings before the District Commission were well known to the Appellant and after the final order was passed on 19.05.2023, there is nothing on record to demonstrate a plausible and sufficient cause explaining the delay in filing the Appeal before the State Commission on 13.08.2025 online and on 22.08.2025 physically. The State Commission therefore after having recorded these reasons found no plausible explanation for the delay and in the absence of any sufficient cause, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, dismissed the Appeal.

6. We have perused the pleadings and we find that execution application No.45/2023 was filed by the complainant after the order was passed by the District Commission where coercive orders were passed with regard to the attachment of the Bank account of the Appellant. Non-