IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 02.09.2025 (Online)

08.09.2025 (Physically)

Date of hearing : 03.11.2025 Date of Decision : 20.11.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 439/2025 IN THE MATTER OF MRS. RUCHI SHARMA W/O MR. RAHUL MEHRA R/O FLAT NO.40, SUBH LAXMI, CGHS LTD.

PLOT NO.13-B, SECTOR-6, DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 (Through Mr. R.L. Gautam, Advocate Email: riggautam@gmail.com Mob:8506000655)

…APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS CLUB RESORTO HOSPITALITY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE: BUILDING NO.24, LEVEL-3 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-III NEW DELHI-1100019 ALSO AT

804-A, 805, 806, 807, SKYLARK BUILDING 60 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019 ....NON-APPLICANT/RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. R.L. Gautam, counsel for the appellant (Mobile No.

8506000655 & Email: rlagautam@gmail.com).

PER: HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

1. The present appeal has been filed on

02.09.2025 (through online mode vide reference no. 202509021061)

and on 08.09.2025 (physically) challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.30/2024 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VII (South West District), Sector-20, Dwarka, Delhi-110077.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.2011/2025 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. I have given considerable thought to the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record.

4. The application has been preferred under Section 69(2) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with 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.30/2024.

5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 3 to 5 of the application read as under:

“3. The delay occurred as the Appellant was continuously pursuing remedies with the Respondent, including communications in 2019, 2023, and a fresh acknowledge email dated 26.08.2025. The Appellant acted bona fide, in good faith, and there was no deliberate lapse.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 held that length of delay is immaterial, sufficiency of cause is material.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752 also emphasized liberal condonation in genuine cases.

6. To adjudicate this issue, I deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as follows:-

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 us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.09.2024 and the present appeal was filed on 02.09.2025 (through online mode vide reference no. 202509021061) a