NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M/S. ALLIANCE BUILDTECH – Appellant
Versus
DR. MOHIT DHAWAN & ANR. – Respondent
NC/FA/500/2022
##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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.