IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution:19.02.2025 Date of hearing : 17.03.2025 Date of Decision : 26.03.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 67/2025 IN THE MATTER OF MRS. PRATIMA BHATIA W/O MR. RAKESH BHATIA R/O HOUSE NO.149 ASHOK VIHAR PHASE-I, DELHI-110052 …APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS PNB MET LIFE SECTOR-10, ROHINI NEAR ROHINI WEST METRO STATION DELHI-110085 ....NON-APPLICANT/RESPONDENT CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Ms. Pratima Bhatia, appellant in person (Mob:9971630127)

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

1. The present appeal has been filed on 19.02.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.303/2021 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.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.413/2025 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 read with Section 151 C.P.C. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.303/2021.

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

“2. That the complaint case vide no.301/2021 was listed on 29/07/2024 argument and the applicant could not appear on that day as her health was not good.

3. That after dismissal the complaint case, no order was ever sent to the applicant and hence, when she came to know and she applied for the order as a first free copy and received the copy on 10-01-2025.

4. That the present appeal is being filed within the limitation period as the first free certified copy of the impugned order dated 29/07/2024 was issued on 10/01/2025 and the appeal is being filed within 30/45 days from the date of receiving the order. The appellant is relying upon the judgment Le. Sudha Kapil & Anr. Versus Ramprastha promoters Developers Pvt. Ltd., Revision Petition no. 1360/2023 passed by Hon’ble National Commission on 17/07/2023. The judgment copy is attached herewith for kind perusal.”

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 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 29.07.2024 and the present appeal was filed on

19.02.2025 i.e. after a delay of 160 days.

8. In order to condone the delay, the appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipu