IN TH E N A TIO N A L C O N SU M ER D ISPU TES R ED R ESSA L C O M M ISSIO N , N EW D ELH I SEC O N D A PPEA L NO . 830 O F 2025 (Against the Order dated 08/05/2025 in Misc. Application No.804 of 2024 in FA No.353 of

2024 of the State Commission Punjab)

WITH IA/14762/2025(for grant of stay) IA/14763/2025 (Condonation of delay)

My Booster Retails Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus Raj Kumar Tiwari & Ors. ....Respondents BEFO RE:

HO N’BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), PRESIDING M EM BER HO N’BLE M R. JUSTICE ANO O P KUM AR M ENDIRATTA, M EM BER For AppellantGFEDC: BMAr. Palash S. Singhai, Advocate Mr. Marshal Sareen, Advocate D ated : 16-12-2025

O R D ER

1.

As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 124 days in filing this Second Appeal. Accordingly IA/14763/2025 has been filed by the Appellant seeking Condonation of delay.

2. In the said Application, the learned counsel for the Appellant has stated following grounds for the delay in filing of the instant Appeal:

a. That the delay w as caused despite the bona fide attem pts of the A ppellant, and the A ppellant has taken all possible steps to m inim ize the delay. That very effort w as m ade to expedite the process of filing the appeal once the decision to challenge the Im pugned O rder w as taken.

b. That it took considerable tim e for the A pplicant/A ppellant to engage a suitable counsel based in D elhi to represent the A pplicant before this H on'ble C om m ission. The A pplicant/

A ppellant is based in Pune, M aharashtra, and the process of engaging a com petent legal professional in a different city took som e tim e, w hich contributed to the delay in preparing and filing the appeal before this H on'ble C om m ission.

c. Further, it also took substantial tim e to procure the necessary docum ents from the earlier counsel w ho had represented the A pplicant/A ppellant before the Ld. State C onsum er D isputes R edressal C om m ission. The said counsel w as based in C handigarh, w hich necessitated extensive coordination and com m unication across different cities (Pune, C handigarh, and D elhi).The collection, collation, and transm ission of all requisite docum ents, from the previous counsel to the new ly engaged counsel in D elhi, w as a tim e-intensive process, thereby causing further unavoidable delay in the preparation of the appeal.

d. That thereafter, the A ppellant/A pplicant herein, under a bona fide belief and w ithout any intention to cause delay, filed a R eview Petition against the Im pugned O rder on 12.08.2025. That subsequently, the Ld. R egistry of this H on'ble C om m ission, on 31.08.2025, raised certain defects in the said R eview Petition. The Ld. R egistry specifically apprised the A ppellant that the R eview Petition preferred by the A ppellant herein w as not m aintainable in light of the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by this H on'ble C om m ission in R P/1879/2024. This clarification from the R egistry, though necessary, consum ed valuable tim e and caused further delay in approaching this H on'ble C om m ission w ith the instant A ppeal, as A pplicant/A ppellant.

e. That the A pplicant/A ppellant has a strong prim a facie case on m erits, and the accom panying A ppeal raises substantial questions of law and fact w hich w arrant consideration by this H on'ble C om m ission. D enying condonation of delay w ould result in a grave m iscarriage of justice, as the A pplicant/ A ppellant w ould be deprived of a valuable opportunity to present their case and seek redressal on technical grounds, w ithout an adjudication on the substantive issues involved.

f. That the procedural technicality of lim itation should not be FEDCBA allow ed to overshadow the substantive rights of the parties, especially w hen the delay is neither deliberate nor actuated by m ala fide intentions. The H on'ble C ourts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted w hile considering

2 GFEDCBA applications for condonation of delay, particularly w hen sufficient cause is s