IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:03.06.2025 Date of hearing : 21.07.2025 Date of Decision : 22.07.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 269/2025 IN THE MATTER OF MR. PANKAJ KUMAR S/O MR. RAMKA RAM AW-498, SANJAY GANDHI TRANSPORT NAGAR NEW DELHI-110042 ALSO AT VPO, BAUHAT KASOL BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH-174012 (Through Mr. Sanjiv Khowal, Advocate Email: sanjiv@venirelex.com Mob.9716262423)

…APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

BUSINESS CENTRE HUB

2ND FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, CORE-3 LAXMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI

2. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.

GATEWAY BUILDING APOLLO BUNDER MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400001 CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Khowal, counsel for the appellant (Mob.9716262423)

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

1. The present appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.614/2024 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-V (North-West District), CSC, Block C, Pocket-C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 wherein the complaint was dismissed being barred by limitation.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1315/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of the appellant has been filed along with this application.

3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. The application has been preferred under Section 5 of Limitation Act. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No. 614/2024.

5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 4 to 10 of the application read as under:

“4. That the Complainant was completely unaware about the proceedings of his complaint case before Id district commission. The lawyer of the Complainant was appraised to him that it is a consumer case and the Complainant need not to come personally to attend the case

5 That the Complainant was in impression that the case was look after by his earlier lawyer and he will appraise him time to time as the complainant being a truck driver had to travel interstate to deliver various Goods on various interstate location throughout India

6. That in the month of January 2025, the complainant was travelling via his truck to Kollam, Kerala to deliver some Goods of one of his party and he had also to take Goods from Kerala to Tamilnadu and thereafter to Gujarat, in his truck. The complainant returned to Himachal in the month of April 2025.

7 That thereafter, many times complainant tried to contact his Advocate to know whereabout of his consumer case, however, contact could not be established with him.

8. That in the month of May 2025, when the complainant personally came to Delhi to meet his advocate then he came across that his complaint case no CC/614/2024 was got dismissed by the Ld. District Commission way back in December 2024.

9. That thereafter, the complainant tried to search new advocate file appeal before the Ld. State Commission and for this purpose he visited many times to Delhi to search advocate who can pursue his case.

10. That the complainant hired service of the present advocate who arranged documents / Case File and immediately prepared the Appeal and filed before this Hon'ble Commission.”

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 fili