##PAGE1##

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/94/2026

(Against the Order dated 19th May 2025 in Appeal No. SC/29/FA/386/2025 of the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)

WITH

NC/IA/987/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

MR. MAHESH K. RAICHANDANI .......Petitioner(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. SRI. RAMESH CH

DHWANI RAICHANDANI W/o. Mahesh K Raichandani

PRESENT ADDRESS - A-10-1602 , 7 PHASE , ELITA PROMENADE, JP

Versus

M/S MIST TURNKEY INTERIORS .......Respondent(s)

BUSINESS ADDRESS - NO.1/A, 2ND FLOOR, 202 , NAVARATHNA GA

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT

FOR THE MR. VISHAL BHATNAGAR, MR. VEER PRATAP SINGH,

PETITIONER: ADVOCATES

DATED: 03/02/2026

ORDER

1. A Consumer Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was instituted

before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, seeking

a refund along with interest and other compensations as ancillary reliefs together

with costs by the Respondent. The dispute was a usual builder buyer dispute

alleging that the developer has failed to develop and deliver the property. The

Complaint was partly allowed holding that there was deficiency in service but the

relief granted was limited. The Order of the District Commission dated 11.07.2023

was assailed by the Complainants in First Appeal No. 386 of 2025 as the

Complainants were dissatisfied with the partial relief. This Appeal was filed with

a huge delay of 574 days and therefore the Appeal was dismissed on account of

inordinate and unexplained delay. The cause shown was not found to be

satisfactory or sufficient and the Appeal was dismissed on 19.05.2025. The

present Revision Petition has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

assailing the said order passed by the State Commission in Appeal.

2. It may be pointed out that against the Order of the State Commission passed in

Appeal, the limited provision for challenge under the Act is provided for through

an Appeal (Second Appeal) before the National Commission provided there is a

substantial question of law involved as per Section 51(2), (3) and (4) of the 2019

Act.

3. The present Petition has been filed with a delay of 131 days and the office seems

to have escaped its reporting on the maintainability of this Revision Petition

keeping in view the orders passed by this Commission in the case of Vivo Mobile

India Private Limited versus Smt. Mavuram Sujatha and Ors. in Revision

Petition No. 1879 of 2024 decided on 20.01.2025, Garv Builders M/s Garv

Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Saxena in NC/DN/2/2025, decided on 16.05.2025

and in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd, vs. Jyoti & Ors. in

NC/DN/33/2025, decided on 16.05.2025. It has been held that a Revision would

not be maintainable where there is a provision of Appeal under the Act.

4. However, an Appeal before the National Commission against an Appellate Order

of the State Commission would be maintainable only on a substantial question of

law under the 2019 Act. Thus a revision cannot be entertained and even

otherwise the Appeal filed before the State Commission was dismissed on the

ground of a huge delay of 574 days without any satisfactory explanation.

5. The present Appeal has also been preferred with a delay of 131 days which seems

to have been reported as a revision whereas if the limitation for an Appeal is

computed the delay would be more than that.

6. In the background above, there is no substantial question of law framed for an

Appeal to be entertained under Section 51(2) and a revision would not be

maintainable in view of the position of law as already explained in the decisions

of this Commission noted above.

7. Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioners were abroad and the delay was not

intentional. He has attempted to justify the cause of delay and he submits that the

matter deserves to be heard on merits.

8. This Commission cannot enter into the merits of the matter unless it has

jurisdiction to entertain an Appeal under Section 51(2) of the Act agains