IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 01.02.2022 Date of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date of Decision: 30.09.2024 REVISION PETITION NO. – 02/2022 IN THE MATTER OF MR. KRISHAN KUMAR JANGIR, S/o Mr. Rameshwal Lal, R/o A-50, Old Gupta Colony, Vijay Nagar, Delhi-110085.

(Through: Mr. Sandeep Khatri & Associates)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. M/S C.M.D. & INFRA. PVT. LTD., Through its Managing Director/Principal Officer

901-909, ITL, Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pritampura, Delhi.

2. MR. NEERAJ NARULA, DIRECTOR, M/S C.M.D. & INFRA. PVT. LTD., 901-909, ITL, Twin Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pritampura, Delhi.

...... Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Sandeep Khatri along with Ms. Shivangi Negi, counsel for the Revisionist through VC.

None for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The Revisionist/Complainant has preferred the present Revision Petition seeking revision of the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.

2. Vide impugned order dated 27.03.2018, the District Commission has dismissed the CC-155/2017 for non-prosecution in following terms:

“Perused file. It is true that none is appearing for the complainant since last dates of hearings i.e. 18.09.2017, 07.12.2017 & 27.03.2018 consecutively. Several calls have been given since morning. But none on behalf of the complainant has appeared.

It appears that the complainant is not interested in perusing his case. It will be abuse of process to proceed further in the absence of the complainant. Hence case is dismissed in default for the reasons mentioned above. File be consigned to record room.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Revisionist/Complainant has preferred the present Revision Petition, inter- alia, contending that the Consumer Complaint No. 155/2017 was filed by the Revisionist through his previous counsel namely Om Prakash Arora and the counsel assured him that he will take care of his case and therefore, the Revisionist always asked about the status of his case through phone, however, after passing of two years, the counsel failed to provide any information regarding the case of the Revisionist, due to which, the Revisionist applied for the certified copies in October 2019 and upon receiving the same, the Revisionist came to know that his case was already dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.03.2018. Thereafter, the Revisionist engaged the present counsel to file the case, however, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the counsel failed to file the present case during the period starting from March 2020 till January 2022. Pressing the aforesaid, the Revisionist prayed for the setting aside of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the District Commission and to restore the CC-155/2017 to its original position.

4. Along with the present Revision Petition, the Revisionist has filed an IA-

54/2022 submitting the exact abovementioned reasons for the delay in filing the present Revision Petition.

5. The Respondents, on the other hand failed to file the reply to the present Revision Petition till date.

6. Before delving into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to first adjudicate upon the application for condonation of delay i.e. IA-54/2022 filed by the Revisionist along with the present Revision Petition. Since it goes to the root of the case and may also render the present judgment illegal if not adjudicated primarily.

7. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005, which provides as under:

“Section 14 Limitation:

Subject to the provisions of sections 15, 19 and 24A, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-

Revision petition shall be filed within 90 days from the date of the order or the date of receipt of the order as