The court affirmed that administrative delays do not constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing appeals under consumer law.

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 21.07.2025, passed by the learned Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 342 of 2025, arising out of the Order dated 30.12.2024, passed by the learned District

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short the ‘District Commission’)

in Consumer Complaint No. 263 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the First Appeal filed by the petitioner / opposite party was dismissed by the learned State Commission on the ground of limitation only and the merits was not gone into.

4. He further submitted that though the delay was properly explained by the petitioner but that was not considered as sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. Hence, the impugned order should be set aside.

5. Considered the submissions so made and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that there was a delay of 130 days in filing of the appeal beyond the prescribed period of thirty days for filing of the appeal. The delay condonation application filed before the learned State Commission shows that the ground of delay shown are that the concerned Advocate did not inform in time to the petitioner about the passing of the impugned order and also that the counsel was changed and it took time to collect the documents and to send them from Thiruvananthapuram to Delhi.

7. Considered the submissions made and perused the impugned order. The learned State Commission has rightly observed that the “sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that the delay was occasioned due to administrative reasons.” In the application filed for delay condonation, there appears no sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 130 days. In the application the petitioner has not mentioned even the number of days of delay.

8. There appears no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

Hence, the present revision petition deserves dismissal at the admission stage itself.

9. The present revision petition is dismissed accordingly.