FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.

2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION

Date of Institution:08.03.2021
Date of Hearing :12.07.2023
Date of Decision :22.09.2023

FIRST APPEAL NO. 26/2021

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. MANOHAR LAL

S/O LATE MR. M. R. VERMA
R/O A-303, AASTHA APARTMENTS,
PLOT NO. 19-B, SECTOR-6 DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075
…APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS

INDIGO AIRLINES
THROUGH THE NODAL OFFICER
AT: CENTRAL WING, GROUND FLOOR, THAPAR HOUSE,
124, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001

ALSO AT:
LEVEL 1, 2ND FLOOR, GLOBAL BUSINESS PARK,
TOWER C, MEHRAULI GURGAON ROAD,
DLF CITY PHASE 3, GURGAON-122010,
NEAR GURU DRONACHARYA METRO STATION

....NON-APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT

CORAM:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Chaitanya Rohilla, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Aakash Khattar, counsel for the respondent.

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

1. The present appeal has been filed on 08.03.2021 challenging the

impugned order dated 02.11.2020 vide which Complaint Case
ALLOWED Page 1 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

No.02/2020 was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction by

the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New
Delhi), ‘M’ Block 1st Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-
110002.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.185/2021
seeking condonation of delay of 74 days in filing the appeal, filed
alongwith the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Manohar Lal S/o Mr. M. R.
Verma, the appellant has been filed alongwith this application.
3. The record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as 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.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various
grounds. Para No.1 to Para No.5 of the application read as under:
“
1. That the Applicant has filed the present Appeal against
the Order dated 02.11.2020 passed by the ld. District
Forum. The contents of this application may be read as
part and parcel to the Appeal.
2. That the Applicant kept on visiting the District Forum to
inquire if the impugned Order had been passed but was
informed that it was not passed.
3. That as soon as the Applicant was informed that the
Order had been passed, the Certified Copy of the
impugned Order was applied for. The Certified Copy of
the impugned Order was received by the Applicant on
19/02/2021
4. That the Applicant was not provided by the copy of the
Order by post by the ld. District Forum.
5. That there is a delay of 74 days in filing the present
Appeal. The delay so caused was not intentional.”
ALLOWED Page 2 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

6. Reply to the said application has been filed by the Respondent

inter-alia contending that the present application is liable to be
dismissed with costs.
7. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section
15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides as
under:-
“Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District
Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the
State Commission within a period of thirty 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 thirty 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 Forum, shall be entertained by the State
Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the
prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or twenty-
five thousand rupees, whichever is less]”

8. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the

appeal against an order should be preferred within a period of
thirty days from the date of impugned judgment. On perusal of
record before us, it is clear that the impugned order was
pronounced on 02.11.2020 and the present appeal was filed on
08.03.2021 i.e. after a delay of 96 days.
9. In order to condone the delay, the Appellant has to satisfy this
Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the
appeal after the stipulated period. The term ‘sufficient cause’ has
been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The
Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The

ALLOWED Page 3 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as

under:-
“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant
could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of
the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough",
inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose
intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no
more than that which provides a platitude, which when
the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose
intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a
case, duly examined from the view point of a
reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context,
"sufficient cause" means that the party should not have
acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of
bona fide on its part in view of the facts and
circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the
party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive".
However, the facts and circumstances of each case
must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court
concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that
whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be
exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the
Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause"
from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory
explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the
application for condonation of delay. The court has to
examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was
merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose.”
10. We also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs.
United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in
IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as
under:-
“12. ………we are not satisfied with the cause shown to
justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has
not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent
judgment of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held
that while deciding the application filed for
condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind
that special period of limitation has been
prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act,
ALLOWED Page 4 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

1986, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer

matters and the object of expeditious adjudication
of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the
appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are
entertained.”
11. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc.
Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
Nos.2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -
“5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by
the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned
trial Court that delay has not been properly
explained and even there are no merits in the
application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the
matter should rest there and the condonation of
delay application was required to be dismissed. The
approach adopted by the learned trial Court that,
even after finding that, in absence of any material
evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been
explained and that there are no merits in the
application, still to condone the delay would be
giving a premium to a person who fails to explain
the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At
this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of
PopatBahiruGoverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer,
reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred
to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the
law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but
it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period
of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision
may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party
but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full
effect to the same.
12. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the
Hon’ble National Commission, it is clear that ‘sufficient cause’
means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner
or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant
must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient
ALLOWED Page 5 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory

explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the
application for condonation of delay.
13. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the
impugned order was passed on 02.11.2020 and the period of
limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on
02.12.2020. However, the appellant has failed to file the present
appeal within the stipulated period and the reason for delay
stated in the application are that after filing of the complaint
before the learned District Commission, the appellant visited the
learned District Commission to enquire about the impugned order
but as soon as he was informed that the impugned had been
passed and certified copy was not provided by the learned District
Commission, certified copy of the impugned order was applied
which was received on 19.02.2021.
14. In the present case, the Appellant has explained the delay caused
in filing this appeal, in Para No. 1 to 5 of the application for
condonation of delay, it has been submitted by the Appellant that
certified copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant
on 19.02.2021.
15. We deem it appropriate to refer the following recent
pronouncements of the Hon’ble National Commission Disputes
Redressal Commission:-
I. Judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.
1246 of 2023 titled as Shashank Anil Singh vs. Star Health
& Allied Insurance Company (Against the Order dated
20/04/2023 in Appeal No. 104/2023 of the State Commission
Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under: -
“1. Heard Mr. Shashank Anil Singh, the petitioner in
person.
2. The above revision has been filed against the Order
of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
dated 20.04.2023 dismissing the FA No. 104 of 2023 as
ALLOWED Page 6 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

time-barred in as much as the delay condonation

application has been rejected. Petitioner pointed that
impugned Order was passed on 20.01.2023 and free
copy has been supplied on 24.01.2023. The period of 45
days from supply of the free copy expired on 10.03.2023
while the appeal was filed on 10.03.2023 there was no
delay at all. The State Commission wrongly dismissed
the appeal as time-barred.
3. A perusal of the Order of State Commission shows
that the State Commission has counted limitation from the
date of pronouncing the judgement dated 20.01.2023
while under section 12 of the Limitation Act the period in
obtaining the certified copy has to be excluded and,
therefore, the order of State Commission suffers from
error apparent on the face of record. It is liable to be set
aside. The revision is allowed. The Order of State
Commission dated 20.04.2023 passed in FA No. 104 of
2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to State
Commission who shall admit the appeal and proceed to
decide the same on merits in accordance with law after
giving notice to the other side.
4. The principal onus of informing the respondent of
this instant Order shall be of the petitioner. He shall do so
within two weeks from today, without fail, and file proof
thereof before the State Commission on or before the next
date of hearing before it.
However, if for whatever reason, the respondent does not
appear before the State Commission on the date of
hearing, the State Commission shall issue notice for
requiring its presence in order to proceed in accordance
with law in the matter, as directed by this Commission.
The State Commission in such a situation may also
require the petitioner to take adequate steps in order to
facilitate service on the respondent.
In case the respondent has objection, it may file
appropriate application before the State Commission,
submitting that it will raise its objection before this
Commission (National Commission). In such contingency,
the State Commission shall not proceed further with the
appeal for a period of three months. In the said period of
three months, the respondent may file appropriate
application before this Commission to raise its objection.
5. If the respondent move appropriate application in this
Commission within the aforesaid period of three months,

ALLOWED Page 7 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

or before, further proceedings of the State Commission

shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by this
Commission on such application. If the respondent does
not approach this Commission in the period of aforesaid
three months (or before), the State Commission shall
further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.”
II. Judgment dated 17.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.
1360 of 2023 titled as Sudha Kapil & Anr. vs. Ramprastha
Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Against the Order dated
07/03/2023 in Appeal No. 9/2023 of the State Commission
Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under: -
“1. This revision petition has been filed under section
58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge
to the Order dated 07.03.2023 of the State Commission in
appeal no. 09 of 2023 arising out of the Order dated
11.11.2022 of the District Commission in complaint no.
284 of 2020.
2. It appears that the earlier second appeal no. 20 of
2023 was filed by the revisionists (the ‘complainants’)
and the following Order dated 03.05.2023 was passed
by this Commission therein. The relevant paragraphs of
the said Order are reproduced below for reference:
1. This second appeal no. 20 of 2023 has been
filed under Section 51(2) of the Act 2019 apropos the
State Commission’s Order dated 07.03.2023 in first
appeal no. 09 of 2023 arising out of the District
Commission’s Order dated 11.11.2022 in complaint
no. 284 of 2020.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants (the
‘complainants’) submits that the complainants are
aggrieved with the impugned Order of 07.03.2023
since not only has the State Commission erred in
calculating the period of delay in filing first appeal
before it but has also erred in holding that sufficient
cause to condone the delay was not forthcoming.
Submission is that the State Commission has
committed jurisdictional error and acted with material
irregularity. Learned counsel further submits that the
complainants wish to withdraw their present second
appeal and in its stead want to file revision under
Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019.
3. In the wake of the above submissions the
second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty

ALLOWED Page 8 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

to the complainants to file revision under Section

58(1)(b) of the Act 2019.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionists (the
‘complainants’). Perused the record including inter
alia the Order dated 11.11.2022 of the District
Commission, the impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 of
the State Commission and the petition.
4. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated
07.03.2023 dismissed the appeal of the complainants
being barred by limitation with the observations which
read as follows:
Having regard to the statutory position discussed in
para supra and the facts of the case, the
applicants/appellants have failed to show any
sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present
appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the
appellants seeking condonation of delay cannot be
admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on
the above grounds.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the
complainants is that the State Commission has committed
a gross error in calculating the period of limitation while
dismissing the appeal of the complainants vide its Order
dated 07.03.2023 and has completely missed to advert to
or attribute any significance to the date when the free
certified copy of the impugned Order was provided to the
complainants. The contention is that the State
Commission has only taken into account the date of Order
i.e. 11.11.2022, when the District Commission passed its
Order and not the date when the free certified copy of the
impugned Order was supplied to the complainants as per
rules and regulations but which was of crucial relevance.
The submission is that on that reckoning, the
complainants had filed the appeal in the State
Commission well within the limitation period as
prescribed by the law. It has also been submitted that
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also adverted to this aspect
in a different matter and has taken a view which favours
the contention of the complainants. Learned counsel
relied upon the decision given by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Housing Board, Haryana vs. Housing
Board Colony Welfare Association &Ors. (1995) 5
SCC 672. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of
the Bench to observations made in the afore said decision

ALLOWED Page 9 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

whereby the need, the significance and the crucial

relevance of the time when the free copy of the Order is
provided to the party has been expatiated upon for the
purpose of counting the period of limitation. The aforesaid
decision was also quoted and referred to in the
application seeking condonation of delay in filing the
appeal before the State Commission. It has been
submitted by the learned counsel that in the impugned
Order passed by the State Commission this aspect, which
focused on the date of supply of the free certified copy of
the impugned order to the complainants has completely
been ignored and the State Commission has glossed over
this germane legal aspect to the utter detriment of the
complainants.
6. It has been further pointed out that even though the
contents of the application seeking condonation of delay
have been referred to in the impugned Order, despite that
there is absolutely no discussion or views expressed with
regard to aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
which was relied upon by the appellant. Further
submission is that even otherwise, in the circumstances
of the case it is very much clear that the said presumed
delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission
was also so insignificantly small that in all fairness in
order to meet the ends of justice and not to leave the
complainants remediless, the State Commission ought to
have condoned the delay as there was convincing
explanation for the alleged delay which constituted
sufficient case to condone the same. The submission is
that the facts and circumstances of the case are such
that no negligent conduct or deliberate intention on the
part of the complainants to delay the filing of appeal
could be adversely inferred or evinced out.
7. The Bench has perused the record, in the light of the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
complainants.
It may be useful to quote some relevant paragraphs of the
application moved before State Commission seeking
condonation of delay in filing the appeal which read as
follows:
2. That the above-caption Appeal was listed
before this Hon’ble Commission on 17.01.2023
wherein this Hon’ble Commission was prima facie of
the opinion that the appeal is time barred, hence the

ALLOWED Page 10 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

Appellants shall file the application seeking

condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. That without prejudice to the rights of the
Appellants the present application for condonation of
delay is being fled only in compliance of the directions
given by this Hon’ble Commission. It is hereby
pertinent to mention that the filing of the present
application does not in any manner amounts to
admission on part of the Appellants with respect to
any delay in filing the captioned appeal.
4. That it is outrightly and humbly submitted that
there is no delay in filing of the present appeal against
the final order / judgment dated
11.11.2022 passed by the Ld. District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, District-South
West, Dwarka, Delhi in case bearing CC No. 284 of
2022.
5. That the Appellants had not received the free
copy of final Order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII,
District-South West, Dwarka, Delhi in case bearing CC
No. 284 of 2020, in compliance of Regulation 21 of
Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission
Procedure) Regulations, 2020, nor had any information
whatsoever as regard passing of the impugned order
dated 11.11.2020.
6. That on 29.11.2022, the Counsel appearing for
the Appellant before the Ld. DCDRC, went to the Ld.
DCDRC-VII, District-South West, Dwarka to enquire
about the status of the judgement, if any passed in the
mater which was pending before the Ld. DCDRC, to
which it came to his knowledge that the final order in
the matter has already been passed and the first /
free copy of the impugned Order was provided to the
said counsel on te same day i.e. on 29.11.2022. The
copy of the impugned Order which is attached to the
appeal is the same first / free copy of the Order which
the Appellants have right to receive in accordance with
the aforesaid regulations, which was handed
over Dasti to the said counsel by the registry of the
Ld. DCDRC.
7. That it is submitted that the though the
impugned Order in the captioned appeal is passed on
11.11.2022 but the limitation for filing the captioned

ALLOWED Page 11 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

appeal commences / runs / reckons from the date of

receiving of the free copy of the Order and not from the
date of the order and not even from the date of
pronouncement of the order. It is submitted that since
the Ld. DCDRC’s impugned order first / free certified
copy to be provided to the parties was itself provided
to the complainant therein / appellant herein on
29.11.2022, therefore, period of limitation of 45 days
as prescribed in Section 41 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 shall commence from the said date only. The
said view has already been taken by the Hon’ble
Supreme court of India in Housing Board,
Haryana Vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare
Association &Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 672.
8. That on computing the limitation period of 45
days from 29.11.2022, the limitation would end /
expire on 13.01.2023 whereas the captioned appeal
was filed on 09.01.2023 i.e., within the limitation
period. Therefore, there is no delay in filing the
captioned appeal, but still the present application is
being filed by the appellant in compliance of the order
dated 17.01.2023 and as a matter of abundant
precaution.
9. That it is humbly submitted that although there
is no delay in filing the captioned appeal but if this
Hon’ble Commission is of the view that there is any
delay then the delay may kindly be condoned in the
interest of justice for the reasons already mentioned
above particularly in view of the fact that passing of
the judgement / final order by the Ld. DCDRC /
impugned order challenged herein, was not in the
knowledge of the appellant.
10. That this present Application is bona fide and in
the interest of justice.
8. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 07.03.2023 of
the State Commission shows that the aforesaid aspect of
the matter which has been emphasized by the learned
counsel for the complainants and which relates
to commencement and counting of the period of
limitation and the views expressed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the decision of Housing Board, Haryana
(supra) and the observations made therein in this regard
have completely escaped the attention of the State
Commission. There is hardly any observation made

ALLOWED Page 12 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

regarding the same in its impugned Order. If the State

Commission found the aforesaid case distinguishable, it
could have very well given its reasons in this regard. But
nothing of that sort has been done. It is difficult to
speculate what view would have been taken by the fora
below had it considered the aforesaid aspect. The Bench
is of the considered view that the present matter ought to
be remanded back to the State Commission to reconsider
the same afresh and to arrive at its findings in that
perspective afresh. While reconsidering the matter the
State Commission would also do well to keep in
perspective the fact that in this case the complainants
have pleaded to have acquired the knowledge of the
Order on the same date when its free copy had been
supplied to them, and not before it. This is not a case in
which there is any material to convincingly show or
demonstrate that even before this supply of free certified
copy, the complainants had acquired the knowledge of
the Order and then negligently or deliberately or
intentionally did not bother to receive or obtain its copy.
Beside that it may be further observed that even the view
taken by the State Commission regarding the sufficiency
or insufficiency of cause to condone the delay in filing the
appeal also appears to be a little harsh, if not inclement,
leaving the complainants remediless. The doors of justice
could better have been kept ajar in the peculiar
circumstances of the case.
9. Sequel to the above the impugned Order dated
07.03.2019 is set aside and the case is remanded back
to the State Commission with the request that it may
decide the matter in issue afresh in view of the
observations made herein above and proceed further as
per the law.
....”
III. Judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.
1673 of 2023 titled as SBI Cards and Payment Services
Ltd. vs. Anuj Kumar (Against the Order dated 13/02/2023 in
Appeal No. A/1772/2016 of the State Commission Uttar
Pradesh), wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under: -
“The office has submitted report that there is delay of
24 days in filing the revision. The petitioner has filed
IA/8789/2023 for condoning the delay. The
impugned order was passed on 13.02.2023. The
petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on

ALLOWED Page 13 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

15.06.2023 which was issued on the same day and

the revision petition was filed through e-filing on
22.06.2023. Subject to objection of the other side,
delay in filing the revision is condoned.
Above revision petition has been filed against the
order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no.
1772/2016 as time barred.
Order of the District Forum was passed on
28.05.2016 and certified copy of the order was issued
on 24.08.2016. The appeal was filed on
08.09.2016. The State Commission in the impugned
order, found that since the order of District Forum had
passed in presence of the parties therefore, they had
no justification for not obtaining its copy prior to
24.08.2016. Regulation 21 of the Consumer
Protection Regulation, 2005 mandates for supply of
free copy of the order. Under Section 12(2) of
Limitation Act, 1963, the period taken in issuing
certified copy of the order has to be excluded, while
computing limitation.
A perusal of the photostate copy of the certified copy
of the order dated 28.05.2016 shows that free copy
was issued only on 24.08.2016 and the appeal was
filed on 08.09.2016. It was well within
limitation. The State Commission was not justified in
dismissing the appeal as time barred.
ORDER
In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Order
dated 13.02.2023 dismissing appeal no. 1772 of
2016 is set aside. The appeal is treated as filed
within time. The State Commission is directed to
decide the case on merits in accordance with law.”
IV. Judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.
1705 of 2023 titled as M/s SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mrs.
Harpreet Kaur (Against the Order dated 10/07/2023 in
Appeal No. A/249/2023 of the State Commission Delhi),
wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC held as under: -
“Above revision petition has been filed against the order
of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
dated 13.04.2023 and the order of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission dated 10.07.2023
whereby the appeal has been dismissed as time
barred. Counsel for the petitioner confined his
ALLOWED Page 14 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

arguments to the illegality of the order of the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission only. In the
present case, the District Forum has dismissed the
complaint by the order dated 11.04.2022. Thereafter,
review application was allowed on 18.10.2022 and
thereafter, the complaint was decided by the order
dated 13.04.2023. The appellant filed the present
appeal before the State Commission against the order
dated 13.04.2023 on 01.06.2023 along with
IA/1311/2023 for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal. In the condonation of delay application, it has
been stated that the free copy was not received to the
appellant. The appellant only received copy when the
counsel for the complainant sent its copy on
25.04.2023. Thereafter, the appellant applied for issue
of certified copy on 25.05.2023 and it was received on
the same day and the appeal was filed on
01.06.2023. It was within 45 days from the knowledge
of the order. Therefore, the delay ought to have been
condoned but the condonation of delay has been
rejected and the appeal has been dismissed as time
barred.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State
Commission has relied upon the dispatch no.
DCDRC/ND/463-64 by which free copy was dispatched to
the parties but the State Commission has failed to note that
the address of the appellant was not correctly mentioned in
the complaint. Therefore, the free copy was not received by
the appellant as stated by the appellant. In these
circumstances, disbelieving the version of the petitioner only
without examining whether the address mentioned on the
dispatch was correct or not, is not correct.
ORDER
In the result, the order is liable to be set aside. Revision is
allowed. The order of the State Commission dated
10.07.2023 dismissing FA/245/2023 is set
aside. Condonation of delay application i.e. IA/1311/2023
is allowed, and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. State
Commission is directed to decide the appeal on merits in
accordance with law.”
V. Judgment dated 21.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.
1711 of 2023 titled as MMTC Ltd. vs. S.B. Mittal & Ors.
(Against the Order dated 13/04/2023 in Appeal No.

ALLOWED Page 15 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

FA/72/2022 of the State Commission Delhi), wherein the

Hon’ble NCDRC held as under: -
“1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
2. The above revision has been filed against the order of
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
New Delhi dated 13.04.2023, whereby the appeal of the
petitioner has been dismissed as delay condonation
application has been rejected.
3. A perusal of the impugned order of the State
Commission shows that the impugned order of the District
Forum was passed on 07.03.2022 and the appeal was filed
on 05.05.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ
Petition (Civil) No(s). 3 of 2020 in re: Cognizance for
Extension of Limitation, has waived the limitation with effect
from 15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022, therefore, there was no
delay at all and the State Commission has illegally
dismissed the appeal as time barred.
4. In the result, the revision petition succeeds. The order
dated 13.04.2023 passed by the State Commission in
FA/72/2022 is set aside and the appeal is restored to its
original number. It is held that the appeal has been filed
within time.
.....”
16. As per the recent pronouncements of the Hon’ble NCDRC, it is
mandatory to supply copy of the impugned order to the parties
and the period taken in issuing certified copy of the order has to
be excluded while computing limitation.
17. Hence, if we calculate the period of limitation from 19.02.2021 i.e.
the date when the certified copy of the impugned order was
received by the Appellant, the present appeal was filed on
08.03.2021 i.e. within a period of limitation. Therefore, the delay
in filing the appeal is condoned and application bearing IA
No.185/2021 filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay
is allowed.
18. A perusal of the record shows that Reply to the appeal of
Respondent is yet to be filed.

ALLOWED Page 16 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

19. Respondent is directed to file reply to the appeal within four

weeks from passing of this order with direction to supply advance
copy of the same to the appellant.
20. Parties are also directed to file their short written submissions
alongwith judgments, if any, being relied by them within four
weeks and advance copies of the same be exchanged with each
other.
21. List the matter on 29.11.2023.

JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

(PRESIDENT)

PINKI
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ALLOWED Page 17 of 18
FA/26/2021 DOD:22.09.2023
MANOHAR LAL VS. INDIGO AIRLINES

22.09.2023

FA-26/2021

Vide separate detailed order, application bearing IA

No.185/2021 seeking condonation of delay is allowed.
A perusal of the record shows that reply to the appeal of
the respondent is yet to be filed.
Respondent is directed to file reply to the appeal within
four weeks from passing of this order with direction to supply advance
copy of the same to the appellant/ counsel.
Parties are also directed to file their short written
submissions alongwith judgments, if any, being relied by them within
four weeks and advance copies of the same be exchanged with each
other.
List the matter on 29.11.2023.

JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

(PRESIDENT)

PINKI
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

ALLOWED Page 18 of 18