IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:30.12.2024 Date of hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of Decision : 25.03.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 849/2024 IN THE MATTER OF M/S NITI SHREE INFRASTUCTURE LTD.

NOW KNOWN AS SHOURYA TOWERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. RAJESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY

78-B, SECTOR D-2, GROUP-II DDA FLAT KONDLI GHAROLI MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-III, DELHI-110096 ALSO AT B-111, SECTOR-5, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH-201301 (Through Mr. Shashwat Kumar &

Mr. Aman Alam, Advocates Email: jurisvisiondelhi@gmail.com Mob: 9899810640

9818806750)

…APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS MS. PARVINDER KAUR R/O 27, SIRI NAGAR COLONY ASHOK VIHAR ROAD, DELHI-110052 ....NON-APPLICANT/RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: None for the parties.

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

1. The present appeal has been filed on 30.12.2024 challenging the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.760/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IX (East District), Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092 wherein the complaint was allowed.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.3544/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Authorized Representative of the appellant has been filed along with this application.

3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the complaint was filed before the District Commission (East) on 06.09.2011 which was returned to complainant/respondent vide order date 23.09.2013 for presenting to proper court/forum having proper jurisdiction on the ground that the District Commission (East) does not have territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, complainant/respondent preferred an appeal before this Commission, which allowed the appeal vide its order date 27.10.2022 holding that “the matter is remanded back to the District Commission (East) for deciding the same on merit within six months and the parties are directed to appear before the District Commission (East) on 25.11.2022”. Accordingly, the matter was received by the District Commission (East) on 17.02.2023 i.e. the date which is cited in the impugned order as date of institution. Thereafter in compliance of order dated 27.10.2022 passed by this Commission, the District Commission (East) revived the matter having its original number i.e. CC/760/2011 which was allowed vide its order dated 24.10.2024.

5. The application has been moved without mentioning any provision of law. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.760/2011.

6. A bare perusal of the application reflects that it has been moved without mentioning any provision of law. However, the entire proceedings of the present case took place according to the Old Act. Hence, before delving into the merits of the present application, it is imperative to ascertain whether the present application bearing IA No. 3544/2024 filed along with the appeal on 30.12.2024 is maintainable under the New Act/Old Act.

7. The repeal of a law shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment i.e. the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall continue for cases which had been filed prior to the implementation of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 20.07.2020. The same can be gauged through the repeal and saving section (Section 107) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which has been reproduced below:

“107. (1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act