SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 3246

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/S. ALLIANCE BUILDTECH – Appellant
Versus
DR. MOHIT DHAWAN & ANR. – Respondent
NC/FA/500/2022



Petitioner Advocates:MR. DEV RISHI & MR. ROHIT PURI ,Respondent Advocate: MR. SANDEEP BHARDWAJ & MR. SEHEL KHAN , MR AKUL MEHANDRU & MR. UPDIP SINGH

##PAGE1##

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/500/2022

(Against the Order dated 23rd March 2021 in Complaint 4/2020 of the State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission Chandigarh)

WITH

NC/IA/11296/2025 (EARLY HEARING)

NC/IA/9752/2022 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/6366/2022 (STAY)

M/S. ALLIANCE BUILDTECH

PRESENT ADDRESS - OFFICE- NH-22, AMBALA CHANDIGARH HIGHWAY. SINGHPURA

ROAD , PUNJAB , ZIRAKPUR , S.A.S NAGAR,PUNJAB.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

DR. MOHIT DHAWAN & ANR.

PRESENT ADDRESS - H NO-1197 , SEC-21B, , CHANDIGARH. , CHANDIGARH ,

CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

DR. ROSY DHAWAN

PRESENT ADDRESS - W/O DR. MOHIT DHAWAN, H NO-1197 , SEC-21B, , CHANDIGARH ,

CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

FOR THE APPELLANT MR. DEV RISHI, ADVOCATE

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

FOR THE RESPONDENTS MR. UPDIP SINGH, ADVOCATE MS. UPDEEP KAUR,

ADVOCATE FOR R-1&2

DATED: 22/12/2025

ORDER

1. The present first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986 by the Appellants/opposite party being aggrieved of the orders dated 23.03.2021

and 07.10.2020 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

UT Chandigarh (for short the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 04/2020

##PAGE2##

and order dated 02.06.2022 in Review Application No. 344 of 2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties on delay condonation application

being IA/9752/2022.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the delay in filing of this

appeal is only 102 days because the impugned order was passed on 23.03.2021.

Thereafter, due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu

W.P. (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation) with effect from

15.03.2020, passed the order for suspension of limitation upto 28.02.2022. Therefore, the

period upto 28.02.2022 will be excluded, while computing the limitation period. He further

submitted that after passing of the impugned order dated 23.03.2021, the appellant filed a

Review Petition before the concerned State Commission but, that was dismissed on

02.06.2022. The petitioner was under bonafide belief that the review jurisdiction may be

invoked before the concerned State Commission. Hence, the delay caused is not

deliberate or intentional but due to the circumstances explained above.

4. Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due to the

spread of Covid, the limitation was exempted only upto 28.02.2022. The limitation shall

start running since 01.03.2022. This appeal has been filed on 11.07.2022. Thus, even if

the period of Covid is excluded, there is a delay of about 131 days, which has not been

properly explained. He further submitted that the filing of review application, knowing very

well that the Authority has no jurisdiction to review its order, cannot be a ground to

condone the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay should be rejected.

##PAGE3##

5. Considered the submissions made by the both the parties and perused the record.

6. In this matter, as noted above, the impugned order was passed on 23.03.2021. The

period upto 28.02.2022 may be excluded from the limitation period as per directions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P. (Civil) No. 3 of 2020. In this matter, the

limitation period shall start running from 01.03.2022. After that, there is a considerable

delay and that delay has not been explained convincingly. Hence, the reasons given to

condone the delay after 01.03.2022 are not sufficient and convincing.

7. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top