NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/939/2025 (Against the Order dated 3rd April 2025 in Appeal No. SC/9/A/312/2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/8173/2025 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/8172/2025 (STAY)

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. PO PRESENT ADDRESS - 27 BKC,C-27,G-BLOCK,BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,BANDRA EASMUMBAI , MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus KILKIL SACHAN PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O P.N. SACHAN R/O 117/AN-79KAKADEV P.S. KAKADEV KANPUR NAGARKANPUR NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SHASHI NANDKEOLYAR , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR THE PETITIONER MR. AJAY UPPAL, ADVOCATE (IN VC)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

FOR THE RESPONDENT NEMO DATED: 23/03/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 03.04.2025, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 312 of 2022, arising out of the Order dated 31.08.2019, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur Nagar (for short the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 281 of 2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay only, without going into the merits. He further submitted that since the petitioner preferred a review petition against the impugned order and that was dismissed on 02.04.2022, therefore, there is no delay in filing of the appeal before the concerned State Commission. Hence, the impugned order should be set aside.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. Perusal of the order shows that the impugned order was passed on 31.08.2019 by the concerned District Forum and appeal against that order has been preferred on 27.04.2022. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that it preferred a review against the impugned order and that remained pending and disposed of on 02.04.2022. Therefore, the period for which the review application remained pending should be excluded from the limitation period.

6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the concerned State Commission has mentioned in the order that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for review of the order. Therefore, the application so moved was baseless.

7. The reasons given for declining the condonation of delay are logical. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Bench, there appears no illegality or irregularity or any jurisdiction error in the impugned order. There was a huge delay in filing of the appeal as the impugned order was passed in the year 2019 and the appeal was filed in the year

2022.

8. Hence, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

Let the file be consigned in the record room.

..................J SAROJ YADAV PRESIDING MEMBER ..................

SHASHI NANDKEOLYAR MEMBER SONIA BAJAJ/Court-5/41