NCDRC Condones 1453-Day Delay In Filing Revision Petition, Grants Benefit Of Section 14 Limitation Act
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice Saroj Yadav (Presiding Member), condoned a delay of 1453 days in filing a revision petition by Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., holding that the period spent bona fide prosecuting remedies before different judicial forums was liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Commission observed that the opposite party had diligently pursued available legal remedies and that substantial justice should not be defeated on technical grounds.
Facts
The dispute arose from a judgment dated August 26, 2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gautam Budh Nagar, allowing a consumer complaint filed by Complainant M/s BR Tourism & Anr. in relation to the repair and servicing of commercial taxi vehicles.
Challenging the order, Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. preferred an appeal before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). However, on April 11, 2022, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution owing to the opposite party's absence on a single date of hearing.
Upon learning of the dismissal, Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. moved an application before the State Commission seeking recall of the order and restoration of the appeal. The State Commission allowed the application on July 7, 2022, restored the appeal subject to payment of costs, and stayed the operation of the District Commission's order.
Aggrieved by the restoration order, Complainant M/s BR Tourism & Anr. approached the NCDRC by filing a revision petition. By order dated April 7, 2026, the NCDRC held that the State Commission lacked the power to recall its order but clarified that the decision was without prejudice to the opposite party's right to avail any other remedy available in law.
Thereafter, Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, which declined interference on July 7, 2026. The opposite party thereafter filed the present revision petition along with an application seeking condonation of the delay.
Contentions of the Parties
Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. contended that the delay of 1453 days, as computed by the Registry, was liable to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act since it had been bona fide prosecuting remedies before the State Commission, the NCDRC and the Allahabad High Court. It submitted that it had acted with due diligence throughout and that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence but had occurred while pursuing remedies before different judicial forums.
On the other hand, Complainant M/s BR Tourism & Anr. contended that Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. had pursued a remedy not contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act by filing a restoration application before the State Commission. It was argued that the opposite party had failed to exercise due diligence and that the time spent in such proceedings could not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The complainant further contended that the remedies pursued by the opposite party were not bona fide and opposed condonation of the delay.
Observation and Decision
The Commission observed that although the State Commission did not possess the power to recall its earlier order, Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. had continuously prosecuted the dispute before different judicial forums. It noted that after the State Commission restored the appeal, Complainant M/s BR Tourism & Anr. challenged that order before the NCDRC, where the proceedings remained pending for nearly four years.
The Commission further observed that its earlier order dated April 7, 2026 had expressly preserved the opposite party's right to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, following which it approached the Allahabad High Court.
Holding that the matter had remained sub judice before different forums and that Opposite Party M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. had been bona fide prosecuting available remedies, the Commission concluded that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act ought to be extended.
Accordingly, it condoned the delay of 1453 days and directed that the revision petition be listed for admission hearing on August 11, 2026.
Case Title: M/s Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s BR Tourism & Anr.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 799 of 2026