Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Honda Cars India Limited – Petitioner
versus
K. S. Suresh Kumar and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No. 2417 of 2024
(Against the order dated 11.10.2022 in CMP No. 93/2021 in FASR No. 42/2020 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) With IA No. 13699-13700 and 14126/2024 (Stay, C/Delay and Amendment)
Decided on 17.12.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Lavanya Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondents No.l: None
For the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 R-4: not served.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Adjudicate on merits – Primary function of consumer forums is to adjudicate on merits.
(2) Ex-parte decision – An ex-parte decision regarding manufacturing defects is legally fragile if the manufacturer was not properly impleaded or served.
(3) Limitation and Substantial Justice – While the law of limitation is substantive and strict, courts must adopt a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice is done, provided there is no lack of bona fides. When a decision on merits is pitted against a rejection based on technical delays, the court favors merits.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act – Condonation of Delay – Principles of Natural Justice – Ex-Parte Orders against Manufacturer – Distinction between “Explanation” and “Excuse” in Limitation – Law of limitation is substantive and strict – Order passed by a District Commission proceeding ex-parte against a manufacturer (Petitioner) – No proof of service of notice – Manufacturing defect was alleged – SCDRC had dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal for non-prosecution (non-appearance of counsel) – Delay of 548 days in filing the revision – Petitioner explained that the delay occurred because they were unaware of the dismissal of the main appeal while handling a separate execution appeal – Significant time was lost obtaining certified copies due to procedural hurdles involving a former counsel – Delay was colossal and due to the Petitioner’s negligence – Case was restored to the District Commission for disposal on merits – Orders of both the State and District Commissions were set aside – Revision Petition was allowed.
Result: Revision Petition allowed.

ORDER

This revision petitioner is barred by time as reported by the office with a delay of 548 days. IA/14126/2024 is the application moved by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the revision petition. The contention raised in the said application in paragraphs 1 to 6 are extracted herein under:

“1. That the Applicant/ Petitioner herein (applicant for short) has preferred the accopanying petition the contents whereof are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The applicant herein shall crave for the liberty of this Hon’ble Commission to allow them to refer to and rely upon the contents appearing therein at the time of hearing of the present application. Vide accompanying petition, the applicant herein has sought the indulgence of this Hon’ble Commission to set aside the order dated 11.10.2022 in FASR/42/2020 as passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressa! Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. State Commission) in the case titled ‘K.S. Suresh Kumar k The Regional Head of Service, Honda Cars India Limited & Ors.

2. The Petitioner at the time of filing the instant revision petition has filed an application seeking condonation of delay bearing number IA/13700/2024 which is stated for hearing on 27.09.2024 aiongwith RP/2417/2024. However, inadvertently, the Counsel omitted to mention important events explaining the delay caused in filing present petition before this Hon’ble Commission. Thus, the Petitioner craves the leave and liberty of this Hon’bie Commission to refer and rely upon this amended application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

3. Succinctly stated that the Petitioner Company preferred a Revision Petition No. 1510 of 2024 titled “Honda Cars India Limited Vs. K.S. Suresh & Ors” before this Hon’ble Commission against the order dated 31.08.2023 and 15.04.2024 passed by the Ld. State Commission, Tamil Nadu in FA/281/2022 and RASR/18/2022 whereby the Ld. State Commission, Tamil Nadu dismissed the FA/281/2022 and Review Petition: RASR/18/2022 on grounds of non-appearance of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by Ld. State Commission, Tamil Nadu, the Petitioner preferred a Revision Petition No. RP/1510/2024 titled “Honda Cars India Limited Vs K.S. Suresh & Ors” whereby this Hon’bie Commission vide order dated 27.05.2024 restored the appeal FA/281/2022 to its original number. Thereafter, the Petitioner company applied for the certified copy of the order dated 27.05.2024 which was received by the Petitioner company on 29.05.2024. Upon receipt of the same, the certified copy was then dispatched to the local counsel at Chennai for taking appropriate steps to get the appeal restored in the first week of June, 2024. Upon instructions, the local counsel took necessary steps for restoration of Appeal No. FA/281/2022 before the L.d. State Commission and it was informed by the registry that the restored appeal pertains to an appeal against the execution proceedings that the Complainant has filed before Ld. District Commission, Thiruvallur and the main appeal bearing number FASR/42/2020 was also dismissed on the grounds of non-appearance of the counsel for Petitioner vide order dated 11.10.2022. Pertinently, the free certified copy of the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 was not received by Petitioner company at its registered office located in Greater Noida therefore could not get to know about the passing of the said impugned order dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner company by the Ld. SCDRC, Chennai. It is pertinent to submit that FASR/42/2020 (main appeal) was handled by Kochhar & Co., New Delhi and as per the directions of the Registry in order to obtain the certified copy of order dated 11.10.2022 there is a requirement to obtain No Objection (NOC) from the previous counsels. The newly appointed local counsel then contacted the present counsels in New Delhi to seek details of the erstwhile counsel for