NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2294/2024

BRIJENDRA DEEPTI GEETA EDUCATION SOCIETY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SHIVAM SRIVASTAVA

13 Sep 2024

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2294 OF 2024

(Against the Order dated 25/07/2024 in Appeal No. A/454/2024 of the State Commission Delhi)

1. BRIJENDRA DEEPTI GEETA EDUCATION SOCIETY E-107, JAWAHAR PARK, KHANPUR, DEVLI ROAD SOUTH DELHI	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M/S INNOVATIVE FINANCIAL ADVISORS PVT. LTD 24/30 GROUND FLOOR, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-3 SOUTH DELHI	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI,PRESIDENT
	HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER :

MR. SHIVAM SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE WITH MR. PRADEEP DUBEY, IN PERSON

Dated : 13 September 2024

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The State Commission in FA/454/2024 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner at the threshold rejecting the application for delay condonation which indicates that the prayer was to condone the delay of 21 days. The delay was sought to be explained by contending that the appeal would lie under the new Act of 2019 which give 45 days limitation but it was later on realized that the appeal would be maintainable under the old Act of 1986 as the original complaint was filed in the year 2015. It is under this confusion that the delay was caused and therefore the delay was prayed to be condoned. The State Commission has proceeded to reject the delay condonation application and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The State Commission has heavily labored on the cause being shown by the complainant  and has recorded a finding that the perception of the appellant was incorrect keeping in view of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Be that as it may, the perception of the petitioner as explained in the delay condonation application may not be palatable but keeping in view the nature of the claim, which was made  and the cause shown which was only for just 21 days of condonation of delay, we  do not find that the State Commission was justified in rejecting the appeal only on the ground of this short delay of 21 days, which was neither inordinate nor was it wanting in insufficient explanation. The Apex Court in the latest judgments in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare & Borhters 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151, Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531 and in Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878,  have indicated the approach to be taken for the purpose of condoning the delay. Accordingly we find sufficient ground made out for interference with the impugned order and accordingly the order dated 24.07.2024 is set aside and the delay in the filing of the appeal is also condoned. The State Commission may now proceed to hear the appeal on admission in accordance with law. The revision petition is allowed.

.........................J

A. P. SAHI

PRESIDENT

................................................

DR. INDER JIT SINGH

MEMBER