2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,
ii) That the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Ld. HP
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
whereby the petitioner has been directed to repair the
vehicle in question and to pay Rs.50,000/- as
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:16301
compensation and Rs.5,000/-cost of litigation may kindly
be quashed and set aside."
3. The petitioner was the respondent in the complaint filed
under Section 12 of the of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by
complainant Sunil Kumar, who is respondent No.1 in the present
petition. The complaint was allowed by learned District Redressal
Consumer Disputes Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District
Kangra, H.P. in terms of decision/order dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure
P-3). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the order passed by
learned District Redressal Consumer Disputes Forum before
Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Shimla. In terms of the order passed by Himachal Pradesh
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, dated
26.11.2019 (Annexure P-5), the appeal of the present petitioner was
partly allowed. This order was challenged by the complainant before
learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi by way of revision petition. The revision petition was allowed
by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in
terms of Annexure P-8, dated 03.07.2023. A review was preferred
against the order which was also dismissed by learned National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated
20.09.2023 (Annexure P-10). Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
order passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal
2025:HHC:16301
Commission is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that
as the revision petition preferred before learned National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission was time barred, it was incumbent
upon learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to
have had heard the parties on the issue of condonation of delay.
However, rather than doing so, the impugned orders were passed.
Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the order, Annexure P-
8, demonstrates that there is no whisper in this order regarding the
application filed by respondent Sunil Kumar, praying for condonation
of delay in filing the revision petition and when this issue was
specifically raised again in the review petition, it has been answered
by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in
terms of Annexure P-10, by observing that as regard the contention
regarding delay in filing of the revision petition, the delay was of 352
days as per the calculation of the Registry and the same was allowed
while hearing the matter on 03.07.2023 after considering the
reasons stated in the application, though it is not specifically
mentioned in order dated 03.07.2023. Learned counsel submitted
that neither the main order passed on 03.07.2023 contains any
mention of this application nor there is any other separate order
passed in it. Accordingly, he prayed that as learned National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in allowing the
revision without first deciding the application filed for condonation of
2025:HHC:16301
delay, the impugned order be quashed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
having perused the documents appended with the petition, this
Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the contention
of the petitioner.
6. When the revision petition preferred before learned
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was time
barred, it was incumbent upon learned National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission to first have had first decided on the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Until and
unless the said application was allowed in favour of the applicant,
technically speaking, there was no revision in the eyes of law before
learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
7. Here it is necessary to take note of that the delay even as
per learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was
of 352 days, which is not a minor delay. In such circumstances, the
onus was upon the revision petitioner to have had satisfied learned
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as to why he
did not approach before learned National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission either within the period of limitation or
within some reasonable time. Learned Commissioner was bound to
decide the application by passing an order either way.
8. Not only this, the present petitioner had a right to assail
2025:HHC:16301
any order passed on the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act itself independently, if order adverse to the interest of
the present petitioner had been passed by learned National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, herein
strangely no order whatsoever appears to have been passed by
learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and what is
observed in a very cursory manner in the review order is that the
application was considered and delay was condoned, though it was
not specifically mentioned in the order passed on 03.07.2023.
9. This Court would like to make an observation that there
is nothing like an application being considered and being allowed
until and unless it is so expressly stated by way of an order. The
order can be a detailed one or a short one.
10. In the absence of there being any adjudication in black
and white on an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, the orders passed by learned National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-10 are
perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-8
and Annexure P-10 are quashed and set aside and the matter is
remanded back to learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission with the direction that the application filed under
2025:HHC:16301
Section 5 of the Limitation Act be heard independently in accordance
with law by adhering to the principles of natural justice. Fresh
notice will be issued by learned learned National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission to the parties for appearing before it.
12. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
May 27, 2025
(Rishi)
