logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.138 print Preview print Next print
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No : NC / DN /47 of 2026 With I A Nos. 4110, 4111 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Parties : Fiitjee Limited Versus Maanya Rao
Appearing Advocates : For the Appearing Parties: Mukesh M. Goel, Dilip Kumar, Nirmal Prasad, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 05-05-2026
Head Note :-
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 51(2) -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Section 51(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

2. Catch Words:
- unfair trade practice
- deficiency
- delay
- revision petition
- appeal
- jurisdiction
- condonation
- conversion

3. Summary:
The compilation is filed as a revision petition challenging the State Commission’s dismissal of an appeal filed by the petitioner against a district commission order granting relief in a consumer complaint. The appeal was dismissed for a delay of 169 days, and the revision seeks to overturn that dismissal. The Commission relies on its earlier decision in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyoti & Ors., which held that where Section 51(2) provides a specific appeal mechanism, a revision petition is not maintainable. Counsel argues that Section 58(1)(b) preserves revision jurisdiction, but the bench finds no new argument and adheres to the precedent. Consequently, the revision petition is rejected, leaving the appellant’s rights to seek appropriate remedy as per law.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. This compilation has been given a Diary number as it has been filed in the shape of a Revision instead of an Appeal challenging the Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 471 of 2025.

2. The Complaint being Consumer Complaint No. 115 of 2024 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of the Petitioner. The Complaint was allowed on 07.04.2025 directing a refund of the amount claimed together with other ancillary reliefs.

3. An Appeal was filed before the State Commission by the Petitioner and the same has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 169 days. As a consequence of rejection of the delay condonation application the Appeal has also been dismissed against which the present compilation has been presented as a Revision Petition.

4. It has been settled in a series of decisions of this Commission including the decision in the case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jyoti & Ors. decided on 16.05.2025 in DN/33/2025, wherein it has been held that since there is a specific provision of an Appeal under Section 51(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Second Appeal) only on substantial questions of law against the final appellate order of the State Commission, a Revision Petition will not lie. Reliance was also placed on the Apex Court decisions wherein it has been held that where there is a provision for an Appeal, a Revision would not lie.

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Mukesh Goel has advanced the very same submissions once again and has urged that the jurisdiction as created under Section 58(1)(b) of the legislature cannot be curtailed and therefore the present Revision Petition be entertained.

6. We are afraid that the Orders passed in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited (Supra) still holds the field and therefore the very same argument that stood rejected in the said decision cannot be entertained as we do not find any novel argument raised before us.

7. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the Complainant can be permitted to convert this into an Appeal. There is no such application and even otherwise the Compilation is consigned without prejudice to the rights of the Complainant to avail of the appropriate remedy that may be available in accordance with law as discussed herein above.
 
  CDJLawJournal