1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 24.05.2023 in Appeal No. 82 of 2023 of the State Commission Delhi arising out of Orders dated 02.11.2022 and 21.01.2023 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 184 of 2019.

2.       Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record including inter alia the Orders passed by the District Commission on 02.11.2022 and 21.01.2023 as well as the impugned Order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the State Commission. 

3.       For better appreciation the Order passed by the District Commission dated 02.11.2022 whereby the complaint was dismissed in non-prosecution may be quoted hereinbelow:-

02.11.2022

Present: None

Present none even on the second call.

None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant for quite some time.  In the interest of justice, a notice was issued to the complainant, which has been duly delivered on 19.10.2022.  Since, the complainant has been served and is still not present, it seems the complainant is not interested in pursuing their claims.  Dismissed for non-prosecution.

Let the file be consigned to record room.

4.       It further transpires that a review application was filed against the afore-said order but the application also was dismissed by the District Commission.  Being aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint in non-prosecution the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  Submission of learned counsel is that the appeal was filed before the State Commission within 45 days which is the period prescribed for filing the appeals under the new Act of 2019.  It was also fairly submitted that actually in the matter at hand the old Act was applicable which prescribes the period of limitation for filing the appeal as 30 days.  In such circumstances, the delay application was required to be filed before the State Commission and so the same was filed according to which the filing of appeal in the State Commission was with a delay of 91 days qua Order dated 02.11.2022 and  delay of 10 days qua Order dated 20.01.2023.  Submission is that the petitioner is the complainant and has a genuine grievance for which the relief had been sought.  Learned counsel has tried to elaborate on the merits of its case submitting that the complainant is having a genuine good case but the same got dismissed in non-prosecution and the merits of the case remained unajudicated.  Learned counsel also tried to explain the circumstances under which the petitioner remained unrepresented before the State Commission on the dates fixed.  It has also been pointed out that the father-in-law of the complainant was suffering with cancer and had to undergo a surgery for cancerous tumour and remained hospitalized for long.  It has also been pointed that the complainant is the sole person to look after his father-in-law and because of all this background the default took place which was neither intentional nor deliberate.  Submission is that if the delay involved in fling the appeal is not condoned the complainant shall be left remediless and the prejudice caused to him shall be irreparable and beyond redemption.  Submission is that the State Commission has not viewed the explanations favourably and has refused to condone the delay  and dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation which is likely to cause grave injustice to the petitioner. 

5.       Without making any comments as to the inherent merits of the case, lest the same may go to prejudice either side, this Bench is of the view that the delay involved in fling the appeal ought to have been condoned in the specific circumstances of the case and the explanations that has been offered on behalf of the petitioner.  In view of the same the impugned Order stands set aside.  The matter is remitted back with a request to the State Commission to consider the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing deeming the delay to have been condoned.

6.       Petitioner is directed to pursue his matter in right earnest with due diligence and not to commit further default.

7.       The petitioner shall appear before the State Commission on 07.03.2024.

8.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner as well to the State Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.