NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1492/2025 (Against the Order dated 12th September 2025 in Appeal SC/6/CC/37/2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana)

WITH NC/IA/14200/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

HSF FOOD PROTECH PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - HSF FOOD PROTECH PVT LTD OPP AIR FORCE STATION DABWALI ROAD SIRSA HARYANA 125055 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR BARAT BHUSHAN GUPTASIRSA,HARYANA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus V.K FOOD PRESENT ADDRESS - V.K FOOD KARNAL SAKRA ROAD, NIGDHU KARNAL HARYANA

132157KARNAL,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

MR. PUSHPINDER SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. HARSH WADHWANI, ADVOCATE MS.

KRITIKA JUNEJA, ADVOCATE DATED: 08/12/2025

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

This Revision Petition has been filed against the Order dated 06.02.2025 in Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2023 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, with a delay of 197 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days in filing of the Revision Petition.

Heard the learned Counsel on the Application for condonation of delay being IA/14200/2025, as well as on merits.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the delay in filing of this Revision Petition occurred for the reason that the notice served in the Complaint was received by one Mr. Raj Kumar who was identified as a Manager of the Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Raj Kumar is not, and has never been a Manager of the company. Therefore if any notice was served to him, it should not be considered as a sufficient service on the Complainant/ company. The learned Counsel further submitted that an FIR was lodged against some officials of the Complainant as they were embezzling the funds of the Complainant. The Petition could not appear before the concerned State Commission as a Complainant of the Consumer Complaint. The Petitioner came to know about the pending Complaint only in first week of October 2025.

Furthermore, when the Petitioner approached its bank then came to know that the Complaint is pending. Thereafter the Petitioner applied for certified copy and got prepared this Petition. Hence the delay may be condoned.

Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

The impugned Order shows that dasti notice was delivered/ served through the Manager of the Company. The Report of one Mr. Ajay Monga was also there on the back of dasti notice about the service. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Therefore learned State Commission passed the Order that the “Opposite Party- M/s HSF Food Pro-Tech Pvt. Ltd. is hereby proceeded against ex-parte” the date for recording of evidence of the Complainant was fixed

12.09.2025.

In the Application filed for condonation of delay no cogent reason has been given. The FIR filed is for embezzlement and that cannot be a ground for condonation of delay in filing of this Revision Petition.

Furthermore, there appears no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order.

Being a Consumer Complaint, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Act. This is a Consumer Complaint matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

I am relying on the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC)

wherein, it was held as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated pe