IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:07.06.2024 Date of hearing : 12.06.2024 Date of Decision : 12.06.2024 FIRST APPEAL NO. 418/2024 IN THE MATTER OF MR. VINOD CHAWLA S/O MR. KANHAIYA LAL R/O J.J. COLONY, WAZIRPUR DELHI-110052 (Through Mr. Kumar Shubham Kushwaha &

Mr. Summit Kaushal, Advocates Mob. 9810313802)

…APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

POLICY SERVING BRANCH OFFICE WAVE SILVER TOWER, 6TH FLOOR UNIT NO. 24-25, SECTOR-18 NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH-2013010 ....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Summit Kaushal [Enrl. No. D/444/97 (R)], counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

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

1. The present appeal has been filed on 07.06.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.645/2022 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 in default as well as for non-prosecution.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1736/2024 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 moved under Section 5 of the 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.645/2022.

5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 2 to 4 of the application read as under:

“2. That the Appellant however, did not receive any copy of the dismissal order from the Ld. District Forum and had to keep asking his counsel for update since the Ld. Counsel kept on informing that the status of the complaint was not updated on the website nor any orders were updated. It was thereafter that the Id. Counsel for the Appellant who was representing the Appellant before the Id. District forum applied for the certified copy of the orders and the said certified copy was then handed over by the counsel of the Appellant to him.

3. That the Appellant has received the copy of the receipt of certified copy on 30/4/2024, from the Hon'ble Forum. The Appellant thus being dissatisfied asked his counsel to return his file which was thus, returned on 02/05/2024 and told him about the fate of the complaint, where after he had to find out some advocate for getting his complaint bearing CC no.645 of 2022 restored.

4. That though the present petition is within time from the date of receipt of certified copy but if the same is not counted for then there is a delay of 7 days which is caused is because of the lapse on the part of the counsel Sh. Amit Gupta and has not been because of any fault of the Petitioner.”

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 se