1. These revision petitions have been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioners/opposite parties being aggrieved of the order dated 29.01.2025, passed by the learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal Nos. 723, 869 and 864 of 2019 respectively, arising out of the order dated 25.04.2019 in Consumer Complaint Nos.30, 32 and 31 of 2014 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Bandra (East), Mumbai (for short the 'District Forum').

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners on the delay condonation application being IA/155/2026, IA/157/2026 and IA/160/2026 respectively.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not receive the copy of the impugned order(s) as the concerned learned State Commission dispatched the copy of the order by ordinary Post, which was never received by the petitioners. The petitioners came to know about the impugned order(s) when Execution Application were filed before the concerned District Forum, somewhere in the second week of August, 2025. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for certified copy and got engaged a lawyer. Therefore, the delay was caused.

4. He further submitted that in fact there is no delay. The application for condonation of delay has been filed as the Registry was not ready to accept the petitions, without application. Hence, this Commission should pass the order that there is no delay.

5. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

6. The Registry has reported that there is a delay of 157, 181 and 157 days respectively in filing of these revision petitions, beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.

7. As per the report of the Registry the impugned order(s) was passed on 29.01.2025. The copy of the order was received on 21.02.2025. The date of filing of these revision petitions is 26.10.2025.

8. Perusal of the impugned order(s) shows that the order(s) was passed after properly serving the notice on the petitioners/appellants. The appellants appeared but, they absented themselves at the final stage of hearing. The copy of the impugned order(s) available on record shows that it was handed over on 21.02.2025. The submission of the petitioners that they never received the copy is not correct one.

9. In the considered opinion of this Bench the reasons given and submissions made are not sufficient enough to condone the delay in filing of these petitions.

10. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

In Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054- 2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

                          "We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same."

                          In Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2014 (11) SCC 351, it was held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as under:

                          7. The issues of limitation, delay and laches as well as condonation of such delay are being examined and explained every day by the Courts.

                          The law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit FinisLitium" (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

                          8. The Privy Council in General Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim, AIR 1941 PC 6, relied upon the writings of Mr. Mitra in Tagore Law Lectures 1932 wherein it has been said that "a law of limitation and prescription may appear to operate harshly and unjustly in a particular case, but if the law provides for a limitation, it is to be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party as the Judge cannot, on applicable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognised by law."

                          9. In P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Apex Court while considering a case of condonation of delay of 565 days, wherein no explanation much less a reasonable or satisfactory explanation for condonation of delay had been given, held as under:-

                          "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds."

11. In the aforementioned circumstances, the delay condonation applications are hereby rejected consequently the present revision petitions are also dismissed at the admission stage itself, being time-barred.

Interim applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Let the file be consigned in the record room after necessary action.