NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/404/2025 (Against the Order dated 13th October 2022 in Complaint SC/9/C/2012/03 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/9978/2025 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING TRANSLATION DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/9976/2025 (STAY)

NC/IA/13723/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/9977/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through its Secretary PRESENT ADDRESS - VIPIN KHAND GOMTI NAGAR , LUCKNOWLUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

VICE CHAIRMAN LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRESENT ADDRESS - VIPIN KHAND GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOWLUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

VICE CHAIRMAN LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRESENT ADDRESS - VIPIN KHAND , LUCKNOW , GOMTI NAGAR , LUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SMT. NIRMAL KAUR W/o. Jagtar Singh Karla PRESENT ADDRESS - M-611, SECTOR-F, LDA COLONY, KANPUR ROAD, , LUCKNOWLUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE APPELLANTS MR. MUKESH VERMA, ADV. (IN VC)

DATED: 15/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Appellants/opposite parties being aggrieved of the order dated 20.10.2022, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in Complaint No. 03 of 2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants on the delay condonation application being IA/13723/2025.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay was caused for the reason that the free copy of the impugned order dated 20.10.2022 was not received by the appellant. The appellant came to know about the impugned order on 19.11.2024 when some information was received at the office of the appellants. Thereafter, the time was consumed in taking the certified copy, also in getting translated the documents and drafting of the appeal. Further, time was taken to get approvals at different levels as the appellant is a Government body. Hence the delay may be condoned.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. Perusal of the record shows that the impugned order was passed on 20.10.2022. Before the learned State Commission the appellant was represented and remained present. After passing of the impugned order on 20.10.2022, if the free certified copy was not delivered by the concerned Commission, then it has not been explained why the appellant remained silently sitting for such a long period, without applying for certified copy itself or moved any application for free certified copy before the concerned State Commission.

6. In a recent judgement Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karanataka Housing Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) decided on 12.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“261. …….Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.”

7. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2474 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.7595-96 of 2011)

decided on 24.02.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

“12. It is not in dispute