IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI SECOND APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2025 (Against the Order dated 17th December 2024 in Appeal No. 397 of 2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh)

W ITH NC/IA/3032/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

NC/IA/4420/2025 (PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/3033/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

M/s Innovative Housing & Infrastructure (P) Ltd PCL House, SCO No. 198, Opp.

Sports Complex, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh Appellant(s)

Versus Sandeep Gupta House No. 149, Block-C, Panjab University Campus, Sector-14, Chandigarh Respondent(s)IHGFEDCBA BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the Appellant (s) : M R. AN IRU D H JAM W AL, AD V M S. KEN ISH A SAVLA, AD V For the R espondent(s) : M R. SACHIN DAYM A, AD V Dated : 18.09.2025

ORDER

1.

Heard learned counsels for both sides.

2. S econd A ppeal has been filed w ith a delay of 38 days as per calculation m ade by the R egistry and IA /3033/2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The delay in filing the S econd A ppeal is condoned after considering the reasons stated therein and the case is taken up on m erits.

3. C hallenge is to the order dated 17.12.2024 of the S tate C om m ission vide w hich the appeal (First A ppeal) filed by the appellant herein w as dism issed on account of lim itation, having been filed w ith a delay exceeding 300 days.

4. The A ppellant has challenged the orders of the S tate C om m ission on follow ing grounds:

(i) T echnicalities vs. S ubstantive Justice: B ecause it is a settled law that m ere technicalities should not com e in the w ay of substantive justice. H ow ever, the Ld. S tate C om m ission dism issed the appeal only on technical grounds w ithout adjudicating the case on m erits.

(ii) Liberal Interpretation of “S ufficient C ause”: B ecause the term sufficient cause under S ection 5 of the Lim itation A ct is to be construed liberally, as held by the H on’ble S uprem e C ourt in C ollector of Land A cquisition, A nantnag v. K atiji and other judgm ents. The Ld. S tate C om m ission instead adopted a strict approach and refused condonation.

(iii) N o Litigant G ains from D elay: B ecause no litigant stands to benefit from delaying its ow n m atter, and the delay w as bonafide due to the error of an em ployee. The A ppellant had no m ala fides and should not be m ade to suffer for the said error.

(iv) S uprem e C ourt P recedents in Favour of C ondonation: B ecause in C ollector of Land A cquisition, A nantnag v. K atiji, P athapati S ubba R eddy v. S pecial D eputy C ollector and A .B . G ovardhan v. P. R agotham an, the H on’ble S uprem e C ourt has held that justice on m erits m ust be preferred over technical objections and delay should be condoned w hen sufficient cause is show n.

(v) G rave P rejudice if D elay N ot C ondoned: B ecause dism issal of the appeal at threshold w ithout considering m erits has caused grave prejudice to the A ppellant and defeated the very purpose of justice.

5. The m ain question for consideration is w hether in the facts and circum stances of the case the S tate C om m ission w as justified in declining condonation of delay in filing the A ppeal and dism iss it as barred by lim itation. W e have carefully gone through the orders of the S tate C om m ission, other relevant records and contentions of the appellant herein, in the light of observations of R on’ble S uprem e C ourt and this C om m ission in various cases.

6. In SChBeAo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Respresentative and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2023) 10 SC C 531, H on’ble Suprem e C ourt observed that condonation of delay being a discretionary pow er available to courts, exercise of discretion m ust necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause show n and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the lengths of delay being im m aterial, each case for condonation of delay based on the existence or absence of sufficient cause