IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:14.02.2025 Date of hearing : 10.03.2025 Date of Decision : 20.03.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 56/2025 IN THE MATTER OF DR. NIRUPAMA TREHANPATI W/O MR. UTTAM PATI R/O D-2, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI (Through Mr. Manveen Dhanjal, Ms. Fariya Asif & Mr. Pappu Salman, Advocates)

…APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS

1. ION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS OF IRIDIA HORIZON PROJECT NOW KAVERI SEHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.

303, 3RD FLOOR, DEVIKA TOWER P.O. CHANDER NAGAR GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

2. DR. P.D. GAIKWAD TECHNICAL OFFICER SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY NEW DELHI

3. STATE BANK OF INDIA RACPC, KARKARDOOMA AGGARWAL FUN CITY MALL SHAHDARA, DELHI ....NON-APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Ms. Fariya Asif, counsel for the appellant (Email:

adv.fariyaasif@gmail.com)

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed on 14.02.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.324/2021 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII (South West District), Sector-20, Dwarka, Delhi-

110077 wherein the complaint was allowed.

2. This order will dispose off an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal at page 17 to 18, filed along with the appeal. No affidavit on behalf of the appellant has been filed along with this application.

3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. The application has been under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, it is being considered under 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.324/2021.

5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 2 to 5 of the application read as under:

“2. That the impugned order was passed on 05.09.2024, and the limitation period for filing the appeal expired on 25.11.2024. However, due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant, there has been a delay of 63 days in filing the present appeal. 3. That the appellant was travelling abroad, and was therefore unable to initiate the process of filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

4. That upon returning to India on, the appellant faced difficulties in the process of e-filing the appeal due to the transition of the e-filing system to e-Jagriti. The newly implemented system had several technical issues, causing delays in the proper submission of the appeal.

5. That the appellant made several attempts to file the appeal but faced technical glitches and other procedural difficulties, which further delayed the filing process.”

6. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section

41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-

41. “Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty percent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:

Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80.”

7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before