State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C R Rajan vs Thomson Homes Depot on 19 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/FA/49/2025
(Against the Order dated 24th May 2024 in Complaint No. DC/565/CC/141/2022 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram)
WITH
SC/32/IA/218/2026 (EARLY HEARING)
C R RAJAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - NEDUMPURAM
LANE,PEROORKADA,TRIVANDRUMTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
THOMSON HOMES DEPOT
PRESENT ADDRESS - CORDIAL
EMERALD,KESHVADASAPURAMTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT
FOR THE APPELLANT:
C R RAJAN
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
THOMSON HOMES DEPOT
DATED: 19/03/2026
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.49/2025 ORDER DATED: 19.03.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.141/2022 on the files of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram) PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT: 1.
C.R.Rajan, G49D, Nedumpram Lane, Peroorkada P.O, Trivandrum-695005 (Party in person) Vs. RESPONDENT:
2.
Managing Director, Thomson Home Depot: Cordial Emarald, Kesavadasapuram, Trivandrum-695004 (by Adv. Chirayinkil M.K.Gopinathan Nair, Adv.Kiran Gopinath, Adv.Reena.K.P, Adv.
Santhosh.S, Adv.Arya.S.Nath & Adv.Uthara J) ORDER HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No.141/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, the 'District Commission').
2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in connection with the purchase of a dining table and 6 chairs by the complainant from the opposite party. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed IA No.156/2022 requesting to condone the delay in filing the complaint. The District Commission issued notice on the said application to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version and also I. A No.292/2022 challenging the maintainability of the complaint. The District Commission, as per order dated 24.05.2024, dismissed IA No.156/2022. Consequent upon the dismissal of IA No.156/2022, the District Commission dismissed IA No.292/2022 as well. The District Commission also dismissed the complaint on the same day consequent upon the dismissal of IA No.156/2022.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
4. The complainant contended that the complainant purchased the furniture in question from the opposite party on 28.01.2016. The purchase was for the purpose of giving the same to the children of the complainant on the occasion of the house- warming function. The furniture was delivered on the eve of the house-warming ceremony and hence, at that time, the defect in the dining table supplied by the opposite party could not be noticed as the chairs were placed at different spots. On the next day, the children of the complainant left for abroad. The complainant also left for his family house situated about 140 km away from the newly constructed house. The defect was detected only when the children of the complainant came back after 5 years.
5. It appears from the records that the goods were purchased by the complainant on 28.01.2016 from the opposite party. However, the complaint was filed by the complainant only on 18.04.2022 and hence there was a delay of nearly 4 years and 3 months in filing the complaint. The complainant contended that the children of the complainant left for abroad on the next day of delivery of the goods, and they could come back only after 5 years due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was only when the children of the complainant came back after 5 years that the defect could be detected.
6. It cannot be ignored that there was a wide spread of the COVID-19 Pandemic from mid-February, which affected human life badly. The Nation was under lock-down from 22-03-2020 onwards. Therefore, human life was totally paralyzed. On account of the difficulties due to the wide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Apex Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v., reported in 2022 (1) KHC 240 : 2022 (3) SCC 117, held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation in all cases. Since the period stipulated for filing the complaint in this case expired much before 15.03.2020, no exclusion for the said period can be granted to the complainant. However, the pendency of the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent prohibition for the journey by flight from abroad could be taken into consideration as a factor justifying the delay for the said period.
7. The District Commission held that the complainant failed to explain sufficient cause for the delay in filing the complaint in respect of the product, which was purchased in the year 2016. There can be no doubt that if the reasons stated by the complainant are true, the delay is liable to be condoned, when a consumer-friendly and liberal approach is taken. It is true that the complainant could not bring to the notice of the District Commission about any relevant material to show that there was justifiable reason to condone the delay. Since the contentions of the complainant can be proved by positive evidence, we are of the view that it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the complainant to substantiate his contentions. For the said reason, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the District Commission dismissing IA No.156/2022.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 24.05.2024 dismissing IA No.156/2022 and the consequent orders dismissing C.C.No.141/2022 and IA No.156/2022 stand set aside and the District Commission is directed to consider IA No. 156/2022 afresh, in accordance with the law, in the light of the observations in this order. Needless to state that, in the event of allowing IA No.156/2022, the opposite party shall have the right to challenge the maintainability of the complaint, if so advised. However, that can be done only after admitting the complaint.
JUSTICE B. : PRESIDENT
SUDHEENDRAKUMAR
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL
MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
VS
..................
SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
PRESIDENT