NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/412/2025 (Against the Order dated 9th January 2023 in Complaint SC/7/CC/385/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi)

SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Through its AR KESHAV TIWARI PRESENT ADDRESS - 301-311, 3RD FLOOR, INDRA PRAKASH BUILDING 21 BARAK , NEW DELHI , 21, BARAKHAMBA ROAD , NEW DELHI,DELHI.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MR. AMANDEEP SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. 71-A GULABI BAGH DDA FLATS , NEW DELHIWEST,DELHI.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. SHALABH SINGHAL, ADV. (IN VC)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. AMIT SHERAWAT, ADV.

DATED: 30/10/2025

ORDER

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 09.01.2023, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 385 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties on delay condonation application being IA/10284/2025 and the reply filed by the respondent against it.

3. The office report shows that this first appeal has been filed with a delay of 916 days beyond the prescribed period of 30 days for filing of the appeal and as per appellant there is a delay of 942 days.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per rules no free copy of the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 was provided to the appellant till date. He has also submitted that the order was not passed in his presence. At the time of passing of the impugned order the legal matters of the appellant company were being looked-after by its earlier AR/Legal Manager Mr. Kartik Shrivastava who abruptly left the job on 24.04.2025. For that reason the company looked for the replacement and appointed a new AR/Legal Manager on 28.05.2025. Then he came to know that the impugned order was passed on 09.01.2023. Before passing the impugned order no prior intimation was given to the appellant and no free copy was dispatched. For these reasons the delay was caused.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal is misconceived and vague. No reasonable or just cause has been shown in the delay condonation application to condone the said delay. The counsel for the appellant was present at the time of passing the impugned order. Hence, it is wrong to say that the appellant has no intimation about the order so passed. He further submitted that the delay is a huge one and there is no sufficient and convincing reason for condoning the delay.

6. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the order was passed after hearing both the parties and on the date of passing of the order, the counsel for the appellant / opposite party was present, as is evident from the documents filed by the respondent as Annexure A-1 and A-2, along with the reply to the delay condonation application. Hence, the submissions of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has no prior intimation of the passing of the order, is not tenable.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized vehemently that the appellant did not receive free copy of the impugned order, till date. The impugned order was passed on 09.01.2023 and the counsel of the appellant was present before the learned State Commission at the time of passing of the impugned order, then after a lapse of certain period, if the free copy was not received, then it was the duty of the appellant to bring it into the notice of the concerned Commission and ask for the free certified copy.

9. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons given and submissions made are not convincing to condone such a huge delay.

10.