A party seeking condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act must provide a satisfactory explanation for each day of delay, demonstrating reasonable diligence; routine excuses regarding record collection or personal stress do not constitute 'sufficient cause' to override statutory limitations.

ORDER

1. As per the record of the Registry, there is a delay of 179 days in filing this First Appeal. Accordingly IA/3400/2026 has been filed by the Appellant seeking Condonation of delay.

2. In the said Application, the appellant has stated that after the order was pronounced, the certified copy was applied for and was made available after some time. The Appellant is a senior citizen aged about 68 years and a retired officer from Indian Oil Corporation, who had taken voluntary retirement to start an independent business which unfortunately could not be commenced due to non-delivery of possession of the commercial units in question. He was under mental stress and financial strain owing to prolonged litigation, continued non-delivery of lawful possession, and partial denial of contractual reliefs despite favourable findings recorded by the State Commission.

3. The Appellant averred that immediately upon receipt of the certified copy of the order, the Appellant approached his counsel for legal advice. Since the matter involved complex issues relating to contractual penalty @2% per month compounded quarterly, unilateral alteration of layout plan, reduction of undivided land share, GST demands and interpretation of statutory provisions under RERA and the Consumer Protection Act, detailed consultations and examination of voluminous record were required. The Appellant was also required to collect complete records including agreements, brochure, correspondence, email communications and other annexures forming part of the record before the State Commission, which consumed considerable time. In the intervening period also witnessed pendency of connected proceedings filed by the Respondents and related developments which required legal evaluation before finalising the present Appeal.

4. The learned counsel for Appellant argued that on 26.08.2025, the impugned order pronounced by the State Commission and in early September 2025, certified copy applied for. The copy was made available in Mid-September 2025, upon receipt of the certified copy, the Appellant, being a senior citizen aged 68 years and suffering continuous financial hardship due to non-delivery of possession since 2016, required time to understand the financial and legal implications of the partial relief granted. Late September 2025 to October 2025, the Appellant was simultaneously required to defend the First Appeal No. 628/2025 filed by the Respondents before this Commission, wherein substantial issues relating to possession, compensation and GST demand were involved. The Appellant had to priorities defending his awarded relief before challenging the denied portion. He argued that in Oct-Nov 2025, detailed consultations were held with counsel at Delhi. The matter involved complex contractual clauses (2% per month compounded quarterly penalty), reduction of undivided land share, unilateral structural alterations under Section 14 of RERA, and reciprocal penalty jurisprudence. The Appellant stated that he had to retrieve agreements-2014, brochure copies, layout plans, modified sanction plans, email correspondence dated 22.06.2018, clarification letters dated 03.07.2018, photographs, and pleadings filed before the State Commission. The record was voluminous. He argued that in November-December 2025, drafting of the appeal required detailed financial recalculation of contractual penalty @ 2% compounded quarterly on Rs.1.60 Crores from 17.10.2016 onward, which itself required tabulation and legal structuring. He further argued that the Appellant, being dependent on post-retirement savings and without possession of his commercial u