The court held that condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act requires the applicant to establish 'sufficient cause' for each day of delay through cogent evidence, and discretionary power should not be exercised to reward negligent litigants or ignore statutory limitation periods.

Dated : 15.04.2026

ORDER (ORAL)

1. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 270 days in filing this Appeal. The Appellants thus filed IA No. 14071 of 2023 seeking delay condonation. In the said IA, the Appellants contended that this Appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2019 passed by the State Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint No. 182 of 2016. The State Commission erred in holding that there was no delay in delivery of possession by the respondent-OP and consequently denied the reliefs sought by the appellants. This finding was passed without appreciating that the delay was entirely attributable to the respondent. The so-called possession offered vide letter dated 21.02.2015 was merely a paper possession, as the flat suffered from several defects and irregularities at that time. Such incomplete possession cannot absolve the respondent of its obligation to hand over a fully completed flat. Significantly, even after the State Commission’s order in 2019, the respondent did not complete the work and the possession was offered only in June 2022, clearly establishing that the flat was not complete in 2015 and the earlier offer was merely an eye-wash. The impugned judgment was passed on 12.04.2019. However, the appellants were unaware of the same as they neither received a free copy from the State Commission nor were they furnished a copy by their counsel. At the relevant time, the appellants were residing in a rented accommodation, paying rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month along with an EMI of Rs. 42,000/- towards the flat, placing them under severe financial strain. The appellants sought possession along with execution of the Sale Deed to mitigate their financial hardship. However, despite the order of State Commission, the respondent failed to hand over possession and instead raised an additional illegal demand of Rs.5,18,407/-, which remained unresolved despite repeated requests by them. Thereafter, the appellants had initiated steps to file the present Appeal. However, the relevant documents were not in their possession and had to be procured from their previous counsel, who took considerable time to provide them. The appellants, being laypersons with no knowledge of legal procedures, were placed at a disadvantage. Despite financial constraints, they engaged a counsel, who also failed to effectively pursue the matter. Unable to afford another counsel, the appellants approached this Commission seeking legal aid. The entire events of non-receipt of the impugned order, delay in obtaining documents from previous counsel, continuous follow-up with the respondent for possession, acute financial hardship, and inaction by the engaged counsel, resulted in an inadvertent delay in filing the present Appeal. The delay is bona fide, genuine and caused by circumstances beyond the control of the appellants and thus deserves to be condoned. The refusal to condone the delay of 270 days would result in grave hardship and irreparable loss. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to condone the delay in the interest of justice. The present application is made bona fide and in the interest of justice.

2. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondents argued that these averments are wholly false, misleading, and contrary to the record. It is evident from Page 16 of F.A. No. 346/2020 that the Appellants’ own counsel, Mr. Umesh Chand Srivastava, applied for and obtained a free certified copy of the Judgment on 08.05.2019 itself under due acknowledgment. The v