The Consumer Protection Act mandates timely appeals, and failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay undermines consumer rights and the Act's objectives.

JUDGMENT :

Advait M. Sethna, J.

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for the following substantive relief :-

“(iii) To pass orders setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 19/08/2024 (at Exhibit-A) passed by the NCDRC in First Appeal No. 771 of 2021; and further pass order that the main Complaint No. 516 of 2016 be remanded back to SCDRC, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nashik for reconsideration while allowing the Appellants to file its written statement before the SCDRC in the said complaint and the said complaint be re-heard on merits.”

2. The petitioners have preferred this petition assailing the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission, New Delhi (‘National Commission’ for short) dated 19 August 2024 (‘Impugned Judgment’ for short) which dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The dispute in these proceedings relates to alleged deficiency of service under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘The Act’ for short), arising out of delay by the petitioner in handing over the respondent’s flat within the agreed time frame as claimed by the respondent, a flat purchaser.

Factual Matrix

3. The relevant facts for adjudicating the present petition are noted as under :-

4. The petitioners are engaged in the real estate construction business acting as builders and developers of various projects. The petitioners launched the project under the names and style of Sainandan for construction of a multi-storeyed building on the land admeasuring 1084.80 sq. mtr. in survey No. 9/3 situated within the jurisdiction of Nashik Municipal Corporation. The respondent as an investor approached the petitioners in or around the year 2010 with a proposal to invest into the said project launched by the petitioners.

5. The respondent under such investment scheme of the petitioners invested an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 20 September 2010 followed by an amount equivalent to Rs. 1,50,000/- on 25 September 2011 with the petitioners. However, as the commencement certificate was not issued, the agreement with the respondent could not be registered. Accordingly, the petitioners tentatively entered into Agreement to Sale/Visar Pavati dated 23 July 2010.

6. Pursuant to the above an estimated time frame of 24 months was set by the petitioners to complete the said project, which did not happen. In view thereof, the respondent file a complaint Case No. 516 of 2016 under the provisions of section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘The Act’ for short) before the State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (‘State Commission’ for short).

7. The State Commission by an order dated 27 July 2018 on the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) partly allowed the complaint by directing the petitioners (opponents) to refund an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit of such amount by the respondent with the petitioners until realization of the amount by the respondent. Additionally, the petitioners were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent towards mental agony an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation charges. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, preferred an appeal dated 27 July 2018 before the National Commission.

8. The petitioners also filed an application for condonation of delay of 1132 days in filing such appeal before the National Commission dated 16 October 2021. As stated in the said application such delay was mainly attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic. The National Commission passed the impugned judgment dated 19 August 2024 in First Appeal No. 771 of 2021 preferred by the petitioner.

Submissions

9. In the above backdrop, we have heard Shri. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner who has circulated the petition stating urgency. At his request, we have heard him on the present proceedings as a limited issue arises for consideration.

10. Mr