NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/15/2026 (Against the Order dated 7th January 2020 in Complaint No. SC/9/CC/301/2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/239/2026 (STAY)

NC/IA/2262/2026 (PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/241/2026 (PLACING ADDL. DOCUMENTS)

NC/IA/242/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY) NC/IA/240/2026 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

M/S ICONIC INFRAESTATE PVT LTD Through its authorised signatory BUSINESS ADDRESS - B 5/434 VIRAJ KHAND , GOMTI NAGAR , GOMTI NAGAR , LUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus AJAI KUMAR RAVI S/o. Shri asharam PRESENT ADDRESS - 216, PATEL NAGAR, LUCKNOWLUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE APPELLANT MR. ANIRUDH KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE DATED: 27/03/2026

ORDER

1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party being aggrieved of the order dated 07.01.2020, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 301 of 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the delay condonation application being IA/240/2026, supported with affidavit dated 24.10.2025 and also an additional affidavit filed on 27.01.2026.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Registry has wrongly calculated a delay of 2070 days, while there is a delay of 171 days in filing of this appeal. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte against the appellant, without any proper service of notice. The appellant came to know about the impugned judgment for the first time on 11.04.2025 when an execution application filed by the respondent / complainant, served at personal residential address situated in Gorakhpur District of Uttar Pradesh, which does not constitute the appellant’s registered office or place of business. After receiving of this notice, the time was consumed in arranging the record and seeking the certified copies of the relevant records. Hence the delay is not a deliberate delay and that may be condoned.

4. Considered the submissions so made and perused the record.

5. The office report shows that the impugned order was passed on 07.01.2020 and this appeal has been filed on 29.10.2025. Hence as per office report, there is a delay of 2070 days.

6. Admittedly, the appellant came to know about the impugned order on 11.04.2025 when it received the notice of execution proceedings. Even if the date of the receipt of notice of execution proceedings i.e. 11.04.2025 is taken into account there is a delay of 171 days as has been computed and noted in the delay condonation application filed by the appellant. The delay is a huge one. The appellant is a builder company having sufficient wherewithal and this is a consumer related matter. Hence, the reasons given for condonation of delay 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. 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 that, even after finding that, in absence of any mater