State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs Rajesh Kumar S/O. Mr. Shivbarayan Gupta on 7 May, 2026
SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026
Versus
Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 15.04.2025 / 25.04.2025
Date of Final Hearing: 04.05.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 07.05.2026
SC/5/FA/32/2025
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
E-8, EPIP, Sitapura Industrial Area
Jaipur through its Authorised Signatory
Sh. Pankaj Chandok, Branch Manager
Branch Office at Meedo Plaza
Rajpur Road, Dehradun
(Through: Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Shivnarayan Gupta
R/o Ram Ghat, Banwarilal Ka Ghar
Haridwar, Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Saurabh Rana, Advocate)
2. Sansaar Honda through its Proprietor
Sansaar House, Near Hotel Gang Tarang
Singhdwar, Haridwar, Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: None)
3. Honda Company, Honda Motorcycle and Scooter Pvt. Ltd.
Commercial Complex-2, Sector 49-50
Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram, Haryana
(Through: None)
...... Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal 1 SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 373 of 2019, styled as Sh. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Sansaar Honda through Proprietor and others, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / opposite parties to the consumer complaint, to refund the price of the subject scooter amounting to Rs. 82,200/- to respondent No. 1 / complainant, together with interest @6% p.a. from 26.11.2019, i.e., the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment, besides to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards special compensation / damages and Rs. 10,000/- towards counsel fee & litigation expenses. The respondent No. 1 / complainant was directed to handover the subject scooter at the showroom of respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 within a period of 15 days'.
2. According to office report dated 15.04.2025 / 25.04.2025, this appeal has been preferred after a delay of 2 years' and 8 months'. The delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the accompanying affidavit (Paper Nos. 35 to 36) to the delay condonation application (Paper No. 34).
3. The main ground taken by the appellant in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is pendency of review application No. 10 of 2022; Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others, filed by the appellant before the District Commission under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking recall of impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the District Commission in the above-mentioned consumer complaint. In the affidavit, it has been averred that the appellant, on mistaken wrong assumption made by its Legal Executive 2 SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others Sh. Santosh Kumar Sharma, decided to file review application against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 and the same was filed on 23.11.2022. The said review application was dismissed by the District Commission per order dated 03.02.2025, whereupon verbal opinion was sought from Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Advocate, the appellant's counsel at Dehradun, who represents the appellant before this Commission in appeals etc., who advised the appellant that review against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 was not possible and appeal was the only answer. Thereafter, after completing required formalities, the appeal was eventually filed before this Commission. The delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional, nor deliberate, hence liable to be condoned.
4. Respondent No. 1 / complainant filed objections against the delay condonation application by way of affidavit (Paper Nos. 57 to 59), averring therein that the appellant can not take benefit of misconduct of their Advocate and Legal Executive. The review application was not maintainable and a non-est exercise. The appellant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 1 / complainant on delay condonation application and perused the record. Inspite of sufficient service of notice, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 did not appear, hence vide order dated 18.03.2026, it was directed that the delay condonation application shall proceed ex-parte against respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
3SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others
6. The ground taken by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, i.e., pendency of review application before the District Commission, is not legally sustainable. The review application was filed by the appellant before the District Commission under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking recall of impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the District Commission in the consumer complaint. Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as follows:
"40. Review by District Commission in certain cases - The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order."
7. Apart from the fact that the review application filed by the appellant was not maintainable before the District Commission, the same was filed on 23.11.2022, whereas the consumer complaint came to be decided by the District Commission per judgment and order dated 04.07.2022. Thus, the review application was not legally tenable, having been filed beyond a period of thirty days from the judgment and order dated 04.07.2022.
4SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others
8. It is well settled that for the purposes of limitation, a litigant is not entitled to the exclusion of period spent in illegal proceedings. There can be no gain saying that for the purposes of limitation, the period from 23.11.2022 to 03.02.2025 can not be excluded, as during the said period, the appellant remained indulged in the proceedings, which can not be said to be bonafide in any manner. According to the own averment made by the deponent in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, learned counsel for the appellant at Dehradun had advised that review against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 was not possible and appeal was the only answer. Thus, as per the own admission of the appellant, the review application so filed by it before the District Commission, was not legally maintainable, even the appellant - company has remained engaged in killing the precious time by pressing the review application before the District Commission.
9. It is now well settled that on account of negligence of the counsel, the party can not get any benefit and any laches on the part of the counsel in prosecuting the matter, is to be treated as negligence / laches on the part of the concerned party itself. In the case of Vinod Kumar Patel Vs. Sambit Kumar Das reported in III (2012) CPJ 703 (NC), it has been held by Hon'ble National Commission that it is well settled that qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant's agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning delay.
5SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited following judgments:
(i) Rameshwarlal Vs. Municipal Council, Tonk and others reported in (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 100.
(ii) Urban Improvement Trust Vs. Poonam Chand reported in 1997 (3) CCC 396 (Raj.).
(iii) Judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. ..... of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17665 of 2018); Purni Devi & Anr. Vs. Babu Ram & Anr.
(iv) Judgment dated 04.11.2025 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA (COMM) 389/2024 and CM APPL. 21125/2025; Roopinder Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Ltd. & Ors.
11. In the case of Rameshwarlal (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the time taken in prosecuting the proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court, diligently and bonafide, needs to be excluded. It can not be said that the proceedings of the review application, which as per the own admission of the appellant, was not legally maintainable, was prosecuted diligent, for the reason that if the appellant would have been so diligent, it should not have engaged itself in illegal proceedings. In the case of Urban Improvement Trust (supra), it was held that before rejecting application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissing appeal as time barred, Courts of law are required to have a glance on the merits. The said decision does not 6 SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others hold good, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, which we shall quote in later part of this judgment. In the case of Purni Devi & Anr. (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in para 31 that, "This Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises (supra) further expounded that the provisions of this Section, must be interpreted and applied in a manner that furthers the cause of justice, rather than aborts the proceedings at hand and the time taken diligently pursuing a remedy, in a wrong Court, should be excluded. The said decision has no applicability in the instant case, for the simple reason that the appellant initiated the proceedings, which were not legally permissible. In the case of Roopinder Singh (supra), it was held that Section 14 is a remedial provision intended to protect a litigant from being penalized for pursuing remedies, bonafide, before an incorrect or incompetent forum. In the case before hand, there was total lack of bonafide on the part of the appellant.
12. Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Jain International Sansthan Vs. Krish City, Bhiwadi and another reported in III (2016) CPJ 2 (NC), has declined to condone the delay of 168 days' in filing the revision petition and has held that no lucid excuse is forthcoming from the petitioner to justify the delay in filing the revision petition. It was held that the case is barred by time. In the said decision, reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court given in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013; Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another, decided on 17.12.2013 reported in 2013 (SLT Soft) 6, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the order of Hon'ble National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days'.
7SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others
13. Hon'ble National Commission in the case of HUDA Vs. Sunil Gupta reported in IV (2012) CPJ 360 (NC), has declined to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. In the said case, the delay of 36 days' in filing the revision petition was not condoned and it was held that the procedural delay is not the sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Vishnu Chand Sharma reported in IV (2012) CPJ 676 (NC), has held that the only explanation that file was moved from table to table to get permission to file petition is not sufficient and the delay of 169 days' in filing the revision petition was not condoned.
14. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 01.10.2025 passed in Revision Petition No. NC/RP/1250/2025; Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sushil Singh Rawat, has refused to condone the delay of 134 days' in filing the revision petition. It was held that such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Act. This is a consumer complaint matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed in SA No. 607 of 2025; Om Electrical Works Vs. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., did not condone the delay of 491 days' (as per Registry) in filing the second appeal, holding that the law of limitation requires delay for each day of delay to be explained after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is necessary that this explanation is rational, reasonable and realistic and to be acceptable.
8SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others
15. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 24.02.2026 passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5/2026 in C.A. No. 7023/2025; Israr Ahmad Khan Vs. Amarnath Prasad & Ors. and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 6/2026 in C.A. No. 7024/2025; Md. Hanif Vs. Amarnath Prasad & Ors., has held in paragraph No. 27 that delayed filing of appeals should be the exception, but in recent times, the exception has practically evolved to become the rule. Orders passed by the Courts are not complied with for a long time, and when Contempt Petitions are filed, belated appeals, with tremendously delay, are preferred.
16. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 08.04.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018; Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. Amarnath Prasad & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), has held in para 30 that the aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted, when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute.
17. Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 9719/2020); H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaian since Deceased by LRS., has held in para 13 to 17 as under:
"13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good 9 SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well as the High Courts that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice oriented approach', "substantial justice" should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.
14. We are constrained to observe that the High Court has exhibited absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties.
15. The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not........................
While considering the plea for 10 SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bonafides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time."
18. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 / complainant cited recent judgment dated 16.04.2026 of this Commission rendered in SC/5/FA/56/2025; Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Swami Vivekanand Health Mission Society, Uttarakhand and another, wherein under similar circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned.11
SC/5/FA/32/2025 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 07.05.2026 Versus Sh. Rajesh Kumar and others
19. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and there is no plausible explanation put forward by the appellant for making a case in its favour, so as to allow the delay condonation application and condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay warrants dismissal.
20. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation. No order as to costs.
21. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
22. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 07.05.2026 12