State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Honda Cars India Limited vs Naresh Kumar Agarwal on 6 May, 2026
SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026
Versus
Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 14.12.2024 / 30.12.2024
Date of Final Hearing: 27.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 06.05.2026
SC/5/A/26/2024
Honda Cars India Limited
through its Authorised Representative
Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kasna Road
Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, IDA,
District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. - 201306
Manufacturing facility at:
Tapukara, District Alwar, Rajasthan
(Through: Sh. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal S/o late Hansraj Agarwal
R/o D-18, Industrial Area, Haridwar
Tehsil and District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate)
2. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia
Manager, Divine Honda
Industrial Area, Haridwar
3. Manager, Divine Automotive Pvt. Ltd.
Mohabbewala, Saharanpur Road
Dehradun, District Dehradun
(Nos. 2 & 3 Through: Sh. S.M. Joshi, Advocate)
...... 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 27.05.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal 1 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 119 of 2020, styled as Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda 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 to respondent No. 1 / complainant an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- received from him, together with interest @6% p.a. from 30.06.2020, i.e., the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment, besides to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards counsel fee & litigation expenses. The respondent No. 1 / complainant was directed to handover the subject vehicle at the showroom of respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 1 within a period of 15 days'.
2. According to office report dated 14.12.2024 / 30.12.2024, this appeal has been preferred after a delay of 2 years' 1 month and 14 days'. The delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the delay condonation application (Paper Nos. 109 to 113) supported by affidavit (Paper No. 114).
3. In the delay condonation application filed by the appellant, it has been stated that upon receipt of summons / notice issued by the District Commission in the aforementioned consumer complaint filed by respondent No. 1 / complainant, the appellant appeared before the District Commission and filed written statement and evidence etc. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, the consumer complaint was allowed by the District Commission. Thereafter, the appellant came to know that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 had filed a restoration application before the District 2 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others Commission on 08.06.2022, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022; Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Authorised Signatory & Manager, Divine Honda and another Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and another, seeking review of judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 and an opportunity of being heard. The District Commission allowed the said Miscellaneous Application, thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 passed in the consumer complaint. Thereafter, the District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2022. In view of dismissal of the consumer complaint by the District Commission per judgment and order dated 22.09.2022, no action was required to be taken by the appellant.
4. It was also mentioned in the delay condonation application that it was only in the beginning of November, 2024, i.e., 05.11.2024, when the litigation team of the appellant - company was checking the list of pending / ongoing cases before various State Commissions by using the word "Honda" on www.confonet.nic.in, it transpired that one appeal bearing No. A/65/2023; Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and another Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and another, is pending against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2022. Immediately, the litigation team of the appellant - company telephonically instructed their counsel at New Delhi to inquire into the pending matter and appear before this Commission, as the consumer complaint had already been dismissed by the District Commission vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2022. Thus, on 07.11.2024, Sh. Ashish Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant appeared before this Commission in appeal bearing No. A/65/2023 through virtual mode and orally mentioned about the judgment and order dated 22.09.2022 3 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others passed by the District Commission in consumer complaint No. 119 of 2020. This Commission granted time to learned counsel for the appellant for filing Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2 (appellant herein). On 12.11.2024, learned counsel for the appellant obtained the information about one Revision Petition No. 28 of 2022; Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and others, filed by the complainant before this Commission, which was allowed per order dated 18.11.2022 and the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission was set aside and the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 was restored. The above-mentioned revision petition was decided by this Commission without issuing notice to the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Thereafter, the appellant decided to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2022.
5. It was further asserted that on 18.11.2024, learned counsel for the appellant was requested to draft the appeal along with necessary applications. On 26.11.2024, the contents of the draft appeal were discussed and finalized with the appellant - company. The appellant requested their learned counsel to obtain the copy of memo of appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 before this Commission, which was provided by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 through e-mail dated 28.11.2024. On 02.12.2024, the appeal was finalized; signed and executed by the authorised signatory of the appellant - company. The appellant - company received demand draft of Rs. 4,87,500/- towards statutory deposit in the appeal from their banker. The appellant - company was surprised to observe that no notice was issued by this Commission to the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2022; Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth 4 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and others. Thus, the appellant had no knowledge of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by this Commission in above-mentioned revision petition. The appellant did not receive the free certified copy of order dated 18.11.2022. There is no willful or intentional delay in filing the appeal, due to the reason that the appellant was under the impression that the consumer complaint had already been dismissed by the District Commission vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2022, hence no action was required at the end of the appellant. The subsequent developments were not in the knowledge of the appellant. No notice in execution application bearing No. EA/46/2023; Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and others, pending before the District Commission, Haridwar, was received by the appellant and the appellant was unaware about the pendency of the execution proceedings. On the above grounds, the delay in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and perused the record.
7. The ground taken by the appellant in the delay condonation application is that since the District Commission by its order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022 has set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 and restored the consumer complaint to its original number and later on, the District Commission vide judgment and order dated 22.09.2022 went on to dismiss the consumer complaint, hence no action was required on the part of the appellant. Emphasis has also been placed on the fact that this Commission did not issue any notice to the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2022 filed by the 5 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others complainant against the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission in Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022 and allowed the revision petition vide order dated 18.11.2022, setting aside the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission and rejecting the Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022, regarding which the appellant had no knowledge prior to 12.11.2024. It was further stated that only on 05.11.2024, the appellant came to know about the pendency of appeal bearing No. A/65/2023; Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and another Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and another, before this Commission.
8. There is no dispute that the consumer complaint was initially decided by the District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, thereby allowing the same. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order would reveal that the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, i.e., the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein, were duly represented before the District Commission. It is true that after passing of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, a restoration application was filed before the District Commission on 08.06.2022 by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to the consumer complaint, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022, which was allowed by the District Commission per order dated 02.08.2022, thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 and restoring the consumer complaint to its original number. The order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission, was challenged by the complainant before this Commission in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2022; Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and others, which was allowed per order dated 18.11.2022 and the order 6 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission was set aside and Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022 was rejected, being not maintainable.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the revision petition was allowed by this Commission, without issuing notice to the opposite parties thereto, i.e., appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3, hence the appellant had no knowledge of the said order. It was further stressed that since by judgment and order dated 22.09.2022, the District Commission had, later on, dismissed the consumer complaint, there was no need of any action on the part of the appellant.
10. It is worth to mention here that since the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission in Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022, thereby recalling / setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, was per se illegal, hence there was no requirement of issuing any notice to the opposite parties of the said revision petition. A perusal of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2022, copy whereof is Paper Nos. 37 to 40, would reveal that it was categorically held that for passing the order dated 02.08.2022, the District Commission has taken shelter of the provisions contained in Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which does not confer any power upon the District Commission to recall its order and the said Section only provides that 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. It would not be out of place to mention here that the appellant can not take any benefit of the order dated 02.08.2022 7 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others passed by the District Commission in Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2022, for the simple reason that the said application was not moved by the appellant, rather it was moved by respondent Nos. 2 & 3, hence on the said count too, the restoration application, even if found maintainable, the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, could not have been recalled by the District Commission against the appellant too. Irrespective of above, any restoration proceedings drawn by the District Commission after passing of the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022, can not be said to be legal and for that precise reason, the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission was set aside by this Commission in the revision petition, without issuing notice to the opposite parties of the revision petition. Thus, the judgment and order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission, thereby dismissing the consumer complaint, has no legal sanctity and can not be taken into consideration in any way. Even if we hold that at the time of passing the order dated 18.11.2022 by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 28 of 2022, the complainant did not bring into knowledge of this Commission, the judgment and order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Commission, the same would have no significance, for the simple reason that since the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the District Commission was not legally sustainable, any consequent proceedings drawn by the District Commission in furtherance of the order dated 02.08.2022, have no legal worth.
11. A ground was also taken that only on 05.11.2024, the appellant came to know about pendency of appeal bearing No. A/65/2023; Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and another Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and another, before this Commission. We have also perused the order-sheet of pendency of appeal bearing 8 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others No. A/65/2023 (SC/5/A/65/2023); Sh. Siddharth Ahluwalia, Manager, Divine Honda and another Vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and another, before this Commission, wherein the appellant was impleaded as respondent No. 2. Vide order dated 20.02.2024 passed in the said appeal, the service of notice upon respondent No. 2 (appellant herein) was considered to be sufficient, on the basis of track report of the postal department. The order-sheet further shows that on 07.11.2024, Sh. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 2 through virtual mode and stated that he will submit Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2, on the next date fixed. There is no case of the appellant that the notice issued by this Commission in appeal bearing No. A/65/2023 (SC/5/A/65/2023), was not served upon the appellant, nor any such averment was ever made on behalf of the appellant in the said appeal. From the track report [Paper No. 92 on the record of appeal bearing No. A/65/2023 (SC/5/A/65/2023)], it is evident that the notice issued to the appellant in the aforesaid appeal on the delay condonation application, was duly served on 02.08.2023. Thus, there can be no gain saying that the appellant had the knowledge of appeal bearing No. A/65/2023 (SC/5/A/65/2023) since 02.08.2023 and a false stand had been taken in the delay condonation application. It is also worth to mention here that after the delay condonation application in appeal bearing No. A/65/2023 (SC/5/A/65/2023) was ordered to be heard ex-parte against the appellant (respondent No. 2 in the said appeal) and the delay condonation application was allowed vide order dated 27.08.2024 and the appeal was admitted and again the notice was directed to be issued to the appellant, which was duly delivered to the appellant on 28.09.2024, as would be evident from the track report [Paper No. 97 on the record of appeal bearing No. A/65/2023 (SC/5/A/65/2023)]. Even then, on 07.11.2024, Sh. Ashish Chauhan, 9 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the said appeal (appellant herein) and sought time for filing Vakalatnama. From 07.11.2024 too, the appellant took more than one month's time for filing the instant appeal online and the same was submitted online only on 14.12.2024. Thus, there has been carelessness / negligence on the part of the appellant throughout.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited following judgments:
(i) Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339.
(ii) Manager, Indusind Bank Limited & Anr. Vs. Sanjay Ghosh reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 550.
(iii) Judgment dated 17.12.2025 of Hon'ble National Commission in NC/RP/2417/2024; Honda Cars India Limited Vs. K.S. Suresh Kumar & Ors.
13. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that although a delay can not be condoned without sufficient cause, the case's merit can not be discarded solely on the technical grounds of limitation. A liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays, when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice. The aforesaid case law goes against the appellant, as in the instant appeal, sufficient cause for condoning the delay is absent. In the case of Manager, Indusind Bank Limited and another (supra), there was delay of merely 67 days' in filing the revision. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that delay in filing the 10 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others revision was not huge, that should not have been condoned. The delay in filing the present appeal is in excess of 2 years'. In the case of Honda Cars India Limited (supra), in para 16 of the judgment, Hon'ble National Commission has held that the explanation given by the petitioner, even though not that convincing as it ought to be, but at the same time, we find that the District Commission seems to have disposed of the matter ex-parte, without any service of notice on the petitioner. It was also held that the merits of the claim regarding any allegation of manufacturing defect can not be allowed without service of notice on the manufacturer, which in the present case, is established. In the case before hand, the appellant duly contested the consumer complaint before the District Commission by filing written statement as well as evidence. There is also neither case of the appellant, nor can be, that the consumer complaint was decided ex-parte by the District Commission against the appellant.
14. 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'.
11SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others
15. 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.
16. 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.
12SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others
17. 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.
18. The condonation of delay is not a matter of right and courts can not condone delay in an appeal simply because it was allowed in a connected appeal. Each case must be evaluated based on its own sufficient cause and merits, rather than on parity or sympathy. 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.
19. 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:
13SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others "13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good 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 14 SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not........................
While considering the plea for 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."15
SC/5/A/26/2024 Honda Cars India Limited 06.05.2026 Versus Sh. Naresh Kumar Agarwal and others
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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. The original record of the District Commission be also remitted back forthwith.
23. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 06.05.2026 16