1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party No.3 being aggrieved of the order dated 07.05.2026, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand Dehradun (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 32 of 2025, arising out of the Order dated 04.07.2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (for short the 'District Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 373 of 2019.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned State Commission has not heard the appeal on merits and dismissed the same on the ground of limitation only. She further submitted that the learned State Commission has committed an error in not excluding the period during which review application filed by the petitioner remained pending before the concerned District Commission. After dismissal of the review application on 03.02.2025, the appeal before the learned State Commission was filed on 15.04.2025. The State Commission has committed an error, in not excluding the period of pendency of the review application for condoning the delay in the matter.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rule-14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, lays that the period for which the review application remained pending should be excluded. Learned counsel also relied upon the case law in Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, decided on March 21, 2025, by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

5. Considered the submissions so made and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the record shows that the order against which the appeal was filed before the learned State Commission, passed by the learned District Commission on 04.07.2022. Against that order, the petitioner filed a review application before the concerned District Commission on 23.11.2022 i.e. beyond the prescribed period of limitation of thirty days. That review application was dismissed by the District Commission vide order dated 03.02.2025, observing clearly that the power of review by the District Commission is only for correcting an error apparent on the face of record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties, within thirty days. The District Commission did not find any error apparent on the face of record and rejected the application vide order dated 03.02.2025.

7. In the appeal filed before the learned State Commission there is a reported delay of 02 years and 08 months. The learned State Commission has rejected the application, observing that the District Commission has no power to recall the order passed by the District Commission under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, only power given is for correcting the error apparent on the face of record. The learned State Commission has also observed that even that application, seeking the recall of the impugned order was moved with a delay. Learned State Commission, after observing that in the affidavit filed by the appellant itself, it has been averred that the appellant on mistaken wrong assumption made by its legal executive decided to file a review application against the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 and the same was filed on 23.11.2022. After the dismissal of the review application, it was advised by the Advocate of the petitioner that filing of the appeal was the only answer and not the review application.

8. Considering all such circumstances, it appears that the review application under Section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can be filed only for correction / modification of an error apparent on the face of record and not for recall of the order. If a review application is filed for recall of order, then it cannot be treated as a bonafide review application. Therefore, in such a situation, there appears no reasons for exclusion of the period from limitation, for which the review application for recall of order remained pending.

9. 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.

10. The case law Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) cited, is of no help to the petitioner as that relates to a Civil Suit and not to a consumer complaint.

11. In the considered opinion of this Bench there appears no illegality, irregularity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission. Hence, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

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