STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. SC/5/MA/11/2026 IN SC/5/FA/17/2025 WITH SC/5/IA/61/2026 (STAY)

SMT.PUSHPA PANT PRESENT ADDRESS - MOHALLA TALLA KHOLTA ALMORA,UTTARAKHAND.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus INDAI POSTAL DEPARTMENT Through its Suprintendent of post PRESENT ADDRESS - ALMORA MANDALALMORA,UTTARAKHAND.

SANJAY VERMA S/o. Govind lal Verma PRESENT ADDRESS - MOHALLA BAMANKHOLAALMORA,UTTARAKHAND.

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SAVING PRESENT ADDRESS - ALMORA,UTTARAKHAND.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MS. KUMKUM RANI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. B. S. MANRAL , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

PRIYANKA JOSHI (Advocate)

DATED: 23/04/2026

ORDER

SC/5/MA/11/2026

23.04.26 Heard Ms. Priyanka Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

This recall application has been filed by the applicant, seeking recall of order dated 25.03.2026 passed by this Commission in appeal bearing No. SC/5/FA/17/2025; Smt. Pushpa Pant Vs. Indian Postal Department and others, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant / appellant was dismissed in absence of the applicant / appellant as well as for want of prosecution.

In the application, it has been stated that non-appearance on behalf of the applicant / appellant before the Commission on the date fixed in the appeal, was neither intentional, nor deliberate. It has been further stated that unfortunately, learned counsel for the applicant / appellant met with an accident in September, 2025 and underwent surgery, on account of which, she was unable to note the date and, therefore, failed to attend the proceedings. On 25.03.2026, learned counsel for the applicant / appellant was also engaged in an urgent manner listed for admission before learned Civil Court, as such, she reached the Commission late and thereafter came to know that the appeal has been dismissed in absence of the applicant / appellant as well as for want of prosecution. The absence on behalf of the applicant / appellant before the Commission was purely unintentional and due to circumstances beyond control and there was no lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. It has been prayed that the Commission be pleased to recall the order dated 25.03.2026 passed in the aforesaid appeal.

In Writ – C No. – 249 of 2024; Savitri Devi Vs. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi through Registrar and others, decided by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide judgment dated 03.10.2024, the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow for want of prosecution and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, was also dismissed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby it has refused to condone the delay of 144 days’ in filing the appeal. It was held by Hon’ble High Court that sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner, hence the National Commission ought to have condoned the delay. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1069 of 2023; Gurudeen Vs. M/s Triputi Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and another, wherein it was held that the State Commission would have power to review its order and accordingly any petition which has been dismissed for want of prosecution wherein sufficient cause is shown, the State Commission itself can recall its order and restore the complaint to its original number and hear the same on merits. It was further held that Hon’ble National Commission has itself held that the State Commission would have inherent power to exercise procedural review and restore the case to its original number.

Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application, we are of the view that non-appearance on behalf of the applicant / appellant before the Commission in the appeal on the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, was not intentional. Accordingly, the recall application is allowed on costs of