National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Proprietor S S Motors vs Beena Titus W/O. Titus P.J. on 11 November, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1321/2025
(Against the Order dated 22nd April 2025 in Appeal SC/32/A/16/108 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Kerala)
THE PROPRIETOR S S MOTORS
PRESENT ADDRESS - HYUNDAI AUTHORISED DEALER M G JUNCTION ENATHU P O
PATHANAMTHITTA 691528PATHANAMTHITTA,KERALA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
BEENA TITUS W/o. titus p.j.
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLOWER COTTAGE KARUVATTA ADOOR P O PATHANAMTHITTA
691523PATHANAMTHITTA,KERALA.
OFFICER IN CHARGE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - I ST FLOOR THE FERNS ICON SY NO 28, DODDENEKKUNDI
BANGALORE 560032THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.
OFFIECER IN CHARGE HYUNDAI MOTORS PVT LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - H I SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL PARK IRRINGATTUKAVO HAI SRI
PERUMBATHOOR KANCHIPURAM CHENNAI 602105KANCHIPURAM,TAMIL NADU.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
FOR THE PETITIONER MR. AKHIL RANGANATHAN, ADVOCATE
DATED: 11/11/2025
ORDER
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 31.01.2025, passed by the learned Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 108 of 2016, arising out of the Order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, (for short the 'District Forum') in Consumer Case No. 39/2014.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/12324/2025 and perused the record.
3. As reported by the Registry the present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 140 days, beyond the prescribed period of 90 days for filing of the revision petition, against the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 and as per the petitioner there is a delay of 74 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, after receiving the impugned order on 22.02.2025 sent the same to the counsel in Delhi to file the petition but the counsel did not file the petition. Thereafter, knowing that the petition has not been filed, a new counsel was engaged, who filed the present petition and for that reason the delay was caused.
5. Considered the submissions made and the reasons given in the delay condonation application. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the reasons given in the delay condonation application are not sufficient and convincing enough to condone the said delay in filing of the present petition.
6. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related 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.
In Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054- 2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 Popat Bahiru Goverdhane 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."
In Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2014 (11) SCC 351, it was held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under:
7. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts. The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit FinisLitium" (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
8. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932 wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law."
9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held as under:-
"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."
7. In the aforementioned circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Bench, there is no sufficient ground for condoning the said delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and present revision petition is dismissed in limine, as time-barred.
Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Let the file be consigned in the record room.
..................J SAROJ YADAV PRESIDING MEMBER