SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3360

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV, PRESIDING MEMBER
M/S AMPRO TESTING MACHINES – Appellant
Versus
M/S SAMEER AUTOMOBILE – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1002/2025 | Against the Order dated 17th April 2025 in Appeal SC/5/A/104/2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. SANCHIT JAGLAN
For the Respondents:

Limitation for filing appeal regarding a judgment starts from the date of knowledge of the order, not the order's date.

Headnote:This revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 contests the State Commission's order dated 17.04.2025, dismissing the appeal due to delay without addressing merits, as the petitioner only learned of the ex-parte District Forum order on 17.10.2023, thus the appeal's filing period should begin from this date. The court observed that limitation is reckoned from the date of knowledge of the impugned order, and hence set aside the impugned order, instructing the State Commission to reconsider the delay condonation application on the correct basis. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Table of Content
1. filing under consumer protection act (Para 1)
2. petitioner's submissions on appeal and delay (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on limitation period (Para 5 , 6)
4. disposition of the revision petition (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (for short ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 104 of 2023 against the judgement / order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Uttarkashi (for short ‘District Forum), in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned State Commission on the ground of delay only, without considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was for the reason that the order of the learned District Forum which was appealed against, was ex-parte. The order passed by the learned District Forum came into knowledge of the petitioner / appellant on 17.10.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner / appellant applied for the certified copy and obtained the same on 20.10.2023 and filed the appeal on 31.10.2023. The period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the impugned order. The learned State Commission has erred in computing the limitation period from the date of the judgment. Hence, the impugned order should be set aside and the appeal be heard on merits.

4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

5. The impugned order shows that the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, being barred by limitation. It is clear from the order of the concerned learned District Forum that the order passed by the District Forum was ex-parte. The petitioner / appellant has submitted that it came to know about the impugned order on 17.10.2023 when the execution proceedings started.

6. It is settled law that limitation period is to be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the order. In such a situation, the period of filing of appeal should be reckoned from the date of knowledge and not from the date of passing of the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

7. The learned State Commission is directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal, taking into consideration the date of knowledge of the impugned order.

The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

8. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned State Commission on

04.09.2025.

Let the record be consigned to the record room.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top