NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/459/2025 (Against the Order dated 28th July 2022 in Complaint No. SC/9/CC/197/2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/11713/2025 (STAY)

NC/IA/11712/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

MAHADEV HOUSING PROJECTSPVT LTD. Through its SANGEETA SHARMA PRESENT ADDRESS - A 1004 NIJALA APARTMENTS , GHAZIABAD , INDIRAPURAM , GHAZIABAD,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SMT KALYANI SHANKAR W/o. MR. JAGDISH SHANKER PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO. 33 B, POCKET F , NEW DELHI , MAYUR VIHAR PHASE II , NEW DELHI,DELHI.

MR. BRIJMOHAN BHARADWAJ S/o. PARTNER PRESENT ADDRESS - 41 B, SUPER DELUXE FLAT , GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR , SECTOR 15A, NOIDA , GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,UTTAR PRADESH.

SMT SHANTA DUTTA W/o. MR. D.N. DUTTA PRESENT ADDRESS - ED-10, INDERPURI , NEW DELHINEW DELHI,DELHI.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE APPELLANT MR. JAYDIP PATI, ADVOCATE DATED: 11/02/2026

ORDER

1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the appellant/opposite party no.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 197 of 2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the delay condonation application being IA/11712/2025.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in filing of the present appeal was caused for the reason that the impugned order was passed by the concerned State Commission is ex-parte and the appellant was not aware of the order, so passed.

No free copy of the order was provided by the concerned learned State Commission.

The appellant came to know about the order when it received the copy of the order, sent by the decree holder on 21.05.2025. After receiving the copy, the appellant applied for certified copy of the ex-parte order, which was issued by the concerned State Commission on 21.05.2025. Hence, the delay of 976 days may be condoned.

4. Considered the submissions so made and perused the impugned order and also the report of the Registry.

5. The Registry has reported a delay of 782 days, beyond the prescribed period of thirty days for filing of the appeals.

6. The impugned order shows that the appellant was served and chose not to appear before the concerned State Commission. The opposite parties no.2 and 3-land owners, appeared and contested the complaint, who are the partners of opposite party no.1, in relation to sale of the apartments. As the appellant chose not to appear before the concerned Commission, despite of sufficient service, it cannot be deemed that the appellant / opposite party no.1 was not aware of the proceedings/impugned order before the concerned learned State Commission.

7. In the considered opinion of this Bench, the reasons given and submissions made are not convincing and sufficient enough to condone a reported delay of 782 days in filing of the present appeal.

8. Being a Consumer dispute, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a Consumer Complaint related matter and has to be decided in a time bound manner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable time, without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act.

In Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalinman, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-

2055/2022, decided on 25.02.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court