State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Liebherr Appliances India Pvt Ltd & Ors vs Mukesh Kumar on 18 July, 2025
FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:19.04.2025
(Online)
06.06.2025
(Physically)
Date of hearing : 17.07.2025
Date of Decision : 18.07.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. 276/2025
IN THE MATTER OF
LIEBHERR APPLIANCES INDIA PVT. LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PLOT A-1/6, SHENDRA MIDC
AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA-431154
SALES OFFICE AT
2ND FLOOR, UNIT NO. 215, JMD EMPIRE SQUARE
MEHRAULI-GURUGRAM ROAD
GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122002
(DULY REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)
(Through Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate
Email: [email protected]
Mob. 9810662291
9310262291)
...APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MR. MUKESH KUMAR
S/O MR. PRABHU DAYAL
R/O FK-29 SHASTRI NAGAR, DELHI-110052
....NON-APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj and Mr. Hitesh Gulati, counsel for the
appellant (Email: [email protected] & Mob.
9810662291).
Mr. Sahil, counsel for the respondent (Mob.9560672817).
DISMISSED Page 1 of 13
FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 19.04.2025 (through online mode vide reference no. 202504191146) and 06.06.2025 (physically) challenging the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.213/2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054 wherein the complaint was allowed.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.1349/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Authorized Representative of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. A perusal of record shows that "Liebherr India Pvt. Ltd." has been mentioned as opposite party no.1 in the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 from page 18 to 21. However, the present appeal has been filed by "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." i.e. the appellant. It is to be noted that "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." i.e. the appellant is not a party in complaint case bearing no. 213/2023 before the District Commission. Further, "Liebherr India Pvt. Ltd." and "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." are two different private companies. The same fact is also admissible in para 3 of the application. Para 3 of the application reads as under:
"3. That the Appeal could not be filed in time as the Appellant came to know about the Impugned order dated 12-11-2024 when the Appellant Company received a mail dated 27-01-2025 from M/S Liebherr India Private Limited (the Other company) and thereupon the Appellant Company has come to know about the Impugned order dated 12-11-2024 and the pendency of Execution Petition thereupon."DISMISSED Page 2 of 13
FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025
5. Page 18 i.e. the first page of the impugned order is reproduced as under:
DISMISSED Page 3 of 13FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025
6. Page 1 and 2 i.e. the memo of parties filed along with the appeal are reproduced as under:
DISMISSED Page 4 of 13FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025
7. Now, it is for "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." i.e. the appellant to explain as to why they have filed the present appeal DISMISSED Page 5 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 impugning the order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.213/2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054 whereas "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." i.e. the appellant is not a party in Complaint Case No.213/2023 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.
8. Thus, "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." i.e. the appellant is not a party in complaint case bearing no. 213/2023 before the District Commission and "Liebherr India Pvt. Ltd." and "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." are two different private companies, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.
9. Even if for the sake of argument, we consider the present appeal filed by "Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd." i.e. the appellant against the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 is maintainable, we would have to first deal with the application i.e. IA/1349/2025 seeking condonation of delay filed along with the present appeal.
10. The application has been preferred under Section 5 of Limitation Act. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.213/2023.
11. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 3 to 5 of the application read as under:
"3. That the Appeal could not be filed in time as the Appellant came to know about the Impugned order dated 12-11-2024 when the Appellant Company received a mail dated 27-01-2025 from M/S Liebherr India Private Limited (the Other company) and thereupon the Appellant Company has come to know about the Impugned order dated 12-11-2024 and the pendency of Execution Petition thereupon.
4. That thereafter the Appellant Company after due discussion with the legal team has come to the finding DISMISSED Page 6 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 as there was no service of any Notice/Summon etc. of any Consumer Complaint against the Appellant Company i.e. Liebherr Appliance Private Limited. It is further relevant to mention here that arraying of M/S Liebherr India Private Limited i.e. the other company as a party to the Complaint case is illegal and against the settled provisions of law.
5. That thereafter some reasonable time spent on procuring relevant documents and thereafter the Present Appeal could be prepared and filed with some period of delay."
12. To adjudicate this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
41. "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five 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 forty-five 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 Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty percent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."
13. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 12.11.2024 and the present appeal was filed on DISMISSED Page 7 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 19.04.2025 (through online mode vide reference no. 202504191146) and 06.06.2025 (physically) i.e. after a delay of 113 days and 161 days respectively.
14. In order to condone the delay, the appellants have 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 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."
15. 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 DISMISSED Page 8 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 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, 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."
16. 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.
17. We deem it appropriate to refer to the broad principles pertaining to the laws of limitation as laid down in the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 titled as "H. GURUSWAMY & ORS. Vs. A. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DISMISSED Page 9 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 DECEASED By LRS." decided on 08.01.2025, wherein the by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. 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 bona fides 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. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in DISMISSED Page 10 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras."
19. 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 cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
20. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 12.11.2024 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 27.12.2024. However, the reasons stated for the delay are that the appellant came to know the impugned order only upon receiving an email on 27.01.2025 from M/s Liebherr India Private Limited (the other company) and the pendency of Execution Petition thereupon; after due legal consultations, the appellant has come to the findings that no notice or summon was ever served in the complaint against it; after procuring necessary documents, some reasonable time was spent; and the present appeal has been prepared.
21. A perusal of the certified copy of impugned order at page 18 to 21 demonstrates that the District Commission has dispatched the same to the parties vide diary no. 1803-05 dated 21.11.2024.
22. It has been averred that there was no service of any notice/summon of any complaint case against the appellant i.e. Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Further, the appellant i.e. Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. came to know about the impugned order on 27.01.2025 when the appellant i.e. Liebherr Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., had DISMISSED Page 11 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 received a mail dated 27.01.2025 from M/s Liebherr India Private Limited (the other company).
23. However, the appellant has not mentioned the specific date as to when they applied for the certified copy. Even, no copy of email dated 27.01.2025 sent from M/s Liebherr India Private Limited (the other company), has been brought on record to support such averment.
24. Further, the appellant has remained silent to mention the specific date as to when discussion was held with legal team; and as to when relevant documents were procured.
25. It has been submitted in para 3 of the application that the appellant came to know about the impugned order on 27.01.2025. Even if we consider that it came to the knowledge of the appellant about passing of the impugned order on 27.01.2025 and the present appeal has been filed on 19.04.2025 (through online mode vide reference no. 202504191146) and 06.06.2025 (physically), in this circumstance also, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 13.03.2025. Still there is delay of 37 days and 85 days respectively in filing the appeal.
26. It is the duty of the appellant to be aware of statutory period of filing the appeal.
27. The applicant has abused the process of law and filed this appeal after immense delay without any reasonable ground.
28. As per the averments made in the application as well as the record, we are of the considered view that no cogent reason has been explained by the appellant to show the delay in filing the appeal.
29. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicant failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant seeking DISMISSED Page 12 of 13 FA/276/2025 LIEBHERR APPLIANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. MR. MUKESH KUMAR DOD:18.07.2025 condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
30. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
31. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties as well as forwarded to the corresponding E-mail address available on the record.
32. File be consigned to record room.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 18.07.2025.
DISMISSED Page 13 of 13