1. The petitioners in both these petitions were opposite parties in CC/15/2016 filed by the respondent no. 1/ complainant.

2. The complainant is the owner of a building, who entrusted a certain job to the petitioners which required the installation of aluminum sheets, coloring and development work etc. Alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed on the ground that the petitioners had used very low quality material resulting in deterioration of the installations and consequently compensation was claimed.

3. Petitioners filed their written version and after contest the complaint was allowed in part and certain refund was directed vide order dated 12.04.2024.

4. The said order was assailed by the petitioners in two separate appeals before the State Commission. Since the appeals were filed with a substantial delay of 328 days each, with no proper explanation, the State Commission dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and consequently the appeals were also dismissed. The delay condonation applications were rejected as per the findings recorded in paragraph 6 to 9 of the said order dated 18.08.2025, which is extracted herein under:

                   "6. The petitioner in I.A. No. 183/2025 contended that the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the District Commission was received by the petitioner on 09.05.2024. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 24.06.2024. However, the petitioner had entrusted the brief with Advocate Nishin George Vijayababu to conduct the case. But the Power of Attorney authorising the petitioner to contest the case was found missing from the said Advocate. That apart, the petitioner was out of station in connection with his treatment for Rheumatic Arthritis.

                   7. The petitioner in I.A. No. 184/2025 also had taken exactly the same contentions. Even the treatment for Rheumatic Arthritis was common to both the petitioners.

                   8. There is no mention in the affidavits about the period during which the petitioners were out of station for their treatment. No material has been also produced to support the contentions of the petitioners.

                   9. Having gone through the reasons stated by the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioners are not sufficient to condone the delay of 328 days in filing the appeal. That apart, it appears that there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in this regard. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay."

5. The appeals were also dismissed by the following order:

                   "In view of the common order on I.A. No. 183/2025 and I.A. No. 184/2025, these appeals stand dismissed as time barred. The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be given to the respective 1st respondent/complainant, to be adjusted/ credited, towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement."

6. The present revision petitions have been filed challenging the aforesaid orders dated 18.08.2025. The date of filing of these revision petitions is 03.06.2026, even though the time taken for filing of the revision petition is 289 days, the period of 90 days of limitation has been subtracted and the delay of 199 days has been reported by the Registry.

7. Surprisingly IA/10371/2026 and IA/10490/2026 are the applications moved praying for condoning the delay in the filing of the revision petitions contending that the cases prima facie attract merit, in as much as, the deterioration in the quality of the services, that alleges that the colour fading had occurred on account of poor quality, was wrong and was on account of misuse by the complainant. The complaint therefore deserved to be dismissed and therefore the appeals deserved to be entertained.

8. The reasoning given in paragraph 10 of the stay application (IA/10371/2026) is as follows:

                   "10. That the Revisionist has a strong prima facie case on merits, inasmuch as the impugned order has dismissed the Appeals on a hyper-technical view of "sufficient cause", contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the expression "sufficient cause" is to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice, and the underlying complaint itself was barred by limitation and the alleged damage was attributable to the Complainant's own use of prohibited acid-based cleaning substances.

9. The only reason indicated for delay is that the State Commission has taken a hyper techinical view and it should have been construed liberally, in as much as, the appeal had merits. Both the applications are therefore based on these averments.

10. Having considered the submissions raised we find that the petitioners have not filed copies of IA/183/2025 and IA/184/2025, the delay condonation applications filed before the State Commission for condoning the delay in the filing of the appeals.

11. Learned counsel during the course of submissions has urged that it was the fault of the lawyers and their irresponsible conduct before the State Commission that led to the delay. This has been stated in paragraph 6.5 of the revision petition, which is extracted herein under:

                   "6.5 That thereafter, aggrieved by the said order, the Revisionist along with Respondent No.2 preferred Appeals before the Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, assailing the judgment and order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur in C.C. No. 15/2016. It is submitted that the said Appeals were accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay of 328 days. It is further submitted that the owing to the negligent and irresponsible conduct of the counsel engaged by the present Revisionist, coupled with the lack of due diligence on the part of the Power of Attorney Holder, the Statutory Appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. That the Copy of Memorandum of Appeal filed before the Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is annexed herewith as "Annexure A-5"."

12. A perusal of the same would indicate that the blame has been shifted on the lawyer as well as the power of attorney holders of the petitioners for not having filed the appeal in time. Such an explanation is unacceptable without any substantive material to establish the same.

13. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rahul Mavai versus Union of India and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine Dei 9050 where it has been observed in Paragraph No. 4 to 6 as follows:

                   "4. We also disapprove the unwholesome practice of seeking to explain away indordinate delay and laches on approaching the Court on the mere ground that the Counsel who had been dealing with, or entrusted, the matter, was tardy, negligent, or indolent. At times, this assertion is sought to be supported by an assertion that the litigant has approached the Bar Council concerned

                   5. against the counsel. We emphatically disapprove of this practice of shifting, to the shoulders of the Counsel, the negligence in approaching the Court. It is easy, in such circumstances, to file a complaint before the Bar Council and seek to explain away the delay. We deprecate this. A litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is entrusted to Counsel.

                   6. That said, if, in fact, the Counsel has been negligent, the litigant would have to place, on record, material to indicate that she, or he, has been in touch with the Counsel during the entire period of delay, and that the Counsel has been misleading her, or him. This material must be acceptable, and convincing. The Court has to be satisfied that, in fact, the Counsel has been misleading the client, and that this explains the entire period of delay in approaching the Court. Of course, if the Court is so satisfied, and an innocent litigant has been led up the garden path by an unscrupulous Counsel, the court would not allow injustice to be done, and would, in an appropriate case, condone the delay."

14. Applying the said ratio we find that the explanation which has been tendered cannot be appreciated nor can it be legally sustained, that too even in the absence of any details or material of the alleged irresponsible conduct of the lawyers.

15. The explanation given before us is equally untenable nor is there any sufficient cause shown in the delay condonation applications filed to explain the delay in the filing of the revision petitions. In the given circumstances, the question of a hyper technical view taken by the State Commission is incorrect and even otherwise that cannot be a ground to explain any cause for delay before this Commission. There is no explanation much less a cogent explanation regarding the delay before us. In our considered opinion it is only an excuse as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531 in paragraphs 30 to 32, which are as follows:

                   "30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.

                   31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.

                   32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."

16. Consequently for all the reasons hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to either condone the delay in the filing of the revision petition, as no sufficient cause has been shown, nor do we find any such ground available so as to treat the order of the State Commission to have been passed on any hyper technical ground.

17. The revision petitions therefore fail and are hereby dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to seek any such remedy as may be available keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ibrat Faizan Vs. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620 and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd,. Vs. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 877.