IN THE N A TIO N A L CO NSUM ER D ISPU TES REDRESSAL C O M M ISSIO N NEW D ELHI SECO ND APPEAL NO . 18 O F 2026 (A gainst the O rder dated 16.10.2024 in Appeal N o.319/2024 of the Kerala State C onsum er D isputes R edressal C om m ission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram )

W ITH IA /486/2026 (C ondonation of delay)

A run M .K H ouse N o.124, O pp. N S S U .P S chool, A yakkad, T h rikkariyo o r P .O .

E rnakulam , K erala-686692 A ppellantBA Versus A jayan V allyath T hekkethil H ouse, N ooranadu PO Respondent P alam el V illage, A lappuzha, K erala - 690504 BEFORE:

HO N'BLE AVM JO NNALAG ADDA RAJENDRA AVSM VSM (R etd)

PR ESID IN G M EM BER HO N'BLE M R JUSTICE ANO O P KUM AR M EN D IRA TTA , M EM BER For the A ppellant : M r. R ohit B ohra, A dvocate D ated: 20.01.2026

O RDER

1.

A s per the re p ort of the R egistry, th e re is 378 days delay in filin g th is S econd A ppeal. T he A ppellant filed IA /4 8 6/2 0 26 seeking C ondonation o f delay w herein th e A ppellant has stated th a t th e delay of 379 days in filin g the A ppeal occurred due to the negligence and inaction o f th e P etitioner's erstw hile counsel. U pon receipt of the certified copy o f the im pugned order, the P etitioner, being a resident o f K erala, required som e tim e to id e n tify and engage an advocate in D elhi. T hereafter, he engaged th e services o f Legalw ays V aliant Law F irm and shared vakalatnam a along w ith attested A ffid a vit dated 0 3 .12 .2 02 4 . T he said law firm advised the P etitioner to file a R evision P etition before th is C om m ission and assured him th a t the sam e w ould be filed w ith in th e period o f lim ita tio n . H ow ever, the R evision P etition w as not filed in tim e . A lso, the erstw hile counsel retained the R evision P etition fo r several m onths and falsely assured the P etitioner th a t the p e titio n had already been filed and w ould be listed in due course. D espite repeated follow -ups by the P etitioner, no sa tisfa ctory response w as received. It w as only in July 2025 th a t he cam e to know th a t no R evision P etition w as filed. Later, on 12.08.2025, a fte r repeated requests, th e erstw hile counsel returned the case file. T h e rea fte r, he again in itia te d th e process of identifying and engaging a n o the r counsel in D elhi. It to o k 20 to 30 days. A fte r engaging the present counsel, the R evision P etition w as filed on 18.09.2025. H ow ever, the R egistry declined to accept the sam e and directed him to file a S econd A ppeal. T hus, the S econd A ppeal w as filed w ith 379 days delay. H e reiterated th a t th e delay occurred due to the negligence and lethargic conduct o f the erstw hile counsel. It is a w e ll-settle d principle o f law th a t a litig an t should not be m ade to su ffe r fo r the m istakes or om issions o f his counsel. T he delay in filin g this A ppeal is n e ithe r deliberate nor m ala fide and has occurred due to the bona fide reasons stated above. T he present application is bona fide, and no prejudice shall be caused to the R espondent if the delay is condoned in th e in tere st of ju stice . H e, th e re fo re , seeks th a t the delay be condoned.

2.

In the present S econd A ppeal, the S tate C om m ission passed the Im pugned O rder on 16.10.2024. T he lim ita tio n fo r filin g the S econd A ppeal before this C om m ission is 30 days. H ow ever, the period o f lim itatio n fo r filin g the S econd A ppeal w ould com m ence from the date o f receipt o f the Im pugned O rder by the A ppellant i.e. 0 7 .1 1 .20 2 4 w hile the lim ita tio n lapsed on 0 6 .1 2.2 0 2 4. H ow ever, th e present R evision P etition w as filed on 2 0 .12 .2 02 5 . T herefore, th e re is a delay o f 378 days (0 7 .1 2 .2 0 24 to 1 9 .12 .2 02 5 ) in filing o f the present S econd A ppeal.

3.

BA A s regards scope fo r C ondonation o f delay in filing such "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa A ppeal, H on'ble S uprem e C ourt in Coalfields Ltd, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", has held:

"It is, how