2025:HHC:16301 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2581 of 2024 Decided on: 27.05.2025 M/s Shimla Auto Zone … Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr.Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : None for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As despite repeated calls, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i). That the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.128 of 2021 and the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Ld. District Redressal Consumer Disputes Forum Kangra at Dharamshala H.P. may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Ld. HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla whereby the petitioner has been directed to repair the vehicle in question and to pay Rs.50,000/- as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:16301 compensation and Rs.5,000/-cost of litigation may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 3. The petitioner was the respondent in the complaint filed under Section 12 of the of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by complainant Sunil Kumar, who is respondent No.1 in the present petition. The complaint was allowed by learned District Redressal Consumer Disputes Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in terms of decision/order dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure P-3). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the order passed by learned District Redressal Consumer Disputes Forum before Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla. In terms of the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure P-5), the appeal of the present petitioner was partly allowed. This order was challenged by the complainant before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi by way of revision petition. The revision petition was allowed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in terms of Annexure P-8, dated 03.07.2023. A review was preferred against the order which was also dismissed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide order dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P-10). Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal 3 2025:HHC:16301 Commission is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that as the revision petition preferred before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was time barred, it was incumbent upon learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to have had heard the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. However, rather than doing so, the impugned orders were passed. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the order, Annexure P- 8, demonstrates that there is no whisper in this order regarding the application filed by respondent Sunil Kumar, praying for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition and when this issue was specifically raised again in the review petition, it has been answered by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in terms of Annexure P-10, by observing that as regard the contention regarding delay in filing of the revision petition, the delay was of 352 days as per the calculation of the Registry and the same was allowed while hearing the matter on 03.07.2023 after considering the reasons stated in the application, though it is not specifically mentioned in order dated 03.07.2023. Learned counsel submitted that neither the main order passed on 03.07.2023 contains any mention of this application nor there is any other separate order passed in it. Accordingly, he prayed that as learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission erred in allowing the revision without first deciding the application filed for condonation of 4 2025:HHC:16301 delay, the impugned order be quashed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the documents appended with the petition, this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the contention of the petitioner. 6. When the revision petition preferred before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was time barred, it was incumbent upon learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to first have had first decided on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Until and unless the said application was allowed in favour of the applicant, technically speaking, there was no revision in the eyes of law before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 7. Here it is necessary to take note of that the delay even as per learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was of 352 days, which is not a minor delay. In such circumstances, the onus was upon the revision petitioner to have had satisfied learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as to why he did not approach before learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable time. Learned Commissioner was bound to decide the application by passing an order either way. 8. Not only this, the present petitioner had a right to assail 5 2025:HHC:16301 any order passed on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act itself independently, if order adverse to the interest of the present petitioner had been passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. However, herein strangely no order whatsoever appears to have been passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and what is observed in a very cursory manner in the review order is that the application was considered and delay was condoned, though it was not specifically mentioned in the order passed on 03.07.2023. 9. This Court would like to make an observation that there is nothing like an application being considered and being allowed until and unless it is so expressly stated by way of an order. The order can be a detailed one or a short one. 10. In the absence of there being any adjudication in black and white on an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the orders passed by learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-10 are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-10 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the direction that the application filed under 6 2025:HHC:16301 Section 5 of the Limitation Act be heard independently in accordance with law by adhering to the principles of natural justice. Fresh notice will be issued by learned learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to the parties for appearing before it. 12. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 27, 2025 (Rishi)