The court reiterated that appeals must present substantial questions of law, and the discretion in condoning delays is limited and must be justified.

ORDER

1. Heard counsel for the appellant.

2. The SA has been filed with a delay of 20 days, as per the calculations made by the Registry. The delay in filing the SA is condoned after considering the reasons stated in the condonation of delay application and the matter is taken-up on merits.

3. The challenge is to the order of the State Commission dated 14.10.2025, vide which first appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed on account of limitation, having been filed with a delay of one month and 24 days.

4. Section 51 (2) envisages a second appeal before this Commission if it involves a substantial question of law. Section 51 (3) states that such substantial question of Jaw should be listed in the memorandum of appeal. in the present case, the appeilant has listed the following substantial questions of Jaw in the memorandum-.of appeal: $A/873/2025

“1. Whether the Consumer Forums have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate refund claims arising out of cancellation of flights by an Airline after the commencement of insolvency proceedings and subsequent liquidation of the concerned Airline, in view of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016?

2.. Whether the Ld. District Commission-erred in law by adjudicating refund claims arising out of cancetled flights when the concemed Airline was already under Corporate insolvency Resolution Process and a statutory moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 was.in force?

3 Whether the Consumer Forums have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon refund claims which fave already been raised and submitted by the Appellant before the Interim Resolution Professional of the concemed Airline pursuant to the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016?

4. Whether the Ld. District Commission failed to. appreciate that in view of the moratorium declared by the Hon'ble NCLT, all claims telating to refunds against. Jet Airways could only be pursued before - the interim Resolution Professional in.accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016?

5. Whether the Ld. District Commission erred in faw by fastening the entire refund liability upon the Appellant, despite the cancellation of flights arose due. to insolvency and grounding of operations of Jet Airways? : 6 Whether the Ld. District Commission wrongly directed the Appellant.to refund the flight booking amounts: which were never received by the Appellant from the-concerned Airlines?

7. Whether the Ld. District Commission has wrongly interpreted the Force Majeure clause duly agreed and -consented to by the — Respondent No. 1, wherein it is explicitik mentioned that in the event of. force majeure circumstances such as the insolvency, the Appellant cannot be held liable for cancellation of bookings by the airlines?

8. Whether the Ld. District Commission erred in proceeding ex parte against the Appellant and passing the Impugned Order dated 03.01.2024 without ensuring valid service of summons at the registered office of the Appeliant?

9. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission erred in law in dismissing the First Appeal filed by the Appellant as barred by limitation by computing the period of limitation from the date of alleged dispatch of the free certified copy of the Impugned Order passed by the Ld. District Commission, instead from the date of actual receipt of the certified copy of the said order by the Appellant?

10. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission failed to.apply the settled law that-limitation under the Consumer Protection Act commences from the date of re