IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REQRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI '

FIRST APPEAL NO.53 OF 2026 (Against the order elated 30 01.2025 in C.C. No.216/2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P.)

with NC/IA/961/2026, NC/IA/962/2026, NC/IA/963/2026 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY, STAY, CONDONATION OF DELAY)

M/s. Samiah International Builders & Ors. ... Appellant(s)

Versus &

Mrs. Saima Malik Anr. Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant(s) Mr, Akhilesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Dated 13.02.2026 :

ORDER

The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 51 of the Consum er Protection Act, 2019 by the Appellants/O pposite Parties being aggrieved of the order dated 30,01.2025 passed by the learned Uttar Pradesh State Consum er Disputes Redressal Com m ission (for short the ‘State Com m ission') in Com plaint Case No.216/2024.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants on the delay condonation application being IA/963/2026.

Learned Counsel subm itted that the im pugned O rder is an ex-parte O rder and the Appellant was not aware of the sam e. The Appellant Com pany got inform ation of execution and was surprised to know that the Appeal period of 30 days has already elapsed. The Appellant applied for the certified copy and thereafter, filed the Appeal, therefore, the delay m ay be condoned. He further subm itted that the Chief M anaging Director of the Com pany is not physically well and m ost /

Of the tim e, he resides at Delhi for thedical treatm ent, therefore, the Appeal could not be filed in tim e.

Considered the subm issions m ade and perused the record.

The office has reported that there is a delay of 310 days in filing of this Appeal though as per the Appellants, there is a delay of 296 days.

In the application for condonation of delay, the Appellants have written that he got inform ation of the execution but has not m entioned when and how, he received the inform ation about the execution pending. Even the date of application applying for certified copy has not been m entioned. There is no Supported docum ent showing the illness of the Chief M anaging Director of the Appellant Com pany.

Being a Consum er Com plaint, such condonation would defeat the purpose of the Act. This is a Consum er Com plaint m atter and has to be decided in a tim e bound m anner and condoning delay beyond a reasonable tim e without sufficient cause, would go against the letter and spirit of the Consum er Protection Act.

I am relying on the O rder of the Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), wherein, it was held as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras."

The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Basavraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl.

Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SOW 6510 observed as under:

"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a ca