STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 04.09.2025 Reserved On : 20.02.2026 Date of decision : 09.03.2026 PUDA, Patiala through its Chairman, PUDA Enclave, Nabha, through its Authorized Signatory now through Estate Officer, Patiala Development Authority, having its Office at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Patiala.

….Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Rajeev Thakur aged about 39 years son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Thakur, resident of House No.B-35/79, Bakshi Gandha Singh, Patiala.

….Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether Judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the Appellant : Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kartikeya Puri, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Appellant/opposite party (OP) i.e. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) through its Estate Officer has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant had been partly allowed

2. There was a delay of 206 days in filing of the Appeal. IA No.1348 of 2025 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an Affidavit.

3. Notice of the Application for condonation of delay was issued to the Respondent/Complainant and thereafter the reply to the Application was filed, whereby the contents of the Application have been rebutted.

4. Mr. Shashank Bhandari, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP has submitted that the impugned order was passed by the District Commission on 10.02.2025 but its certified copy was received by the Appellant on 06.06.2025. Thereafter, it was processed on 06.06.2025 by the concerned Officer of the Branch and the file was sent to the Legal Branch for taking necessary action. Thereafter, the file was processed by the Legal Branch on 20.06.2025 for seeking approval to engage he Counsel and on receipt of the requisite documents, the file was sent to the Chief Administrator, PDA on 23.06.2025 for seeking requisite approval from the Head Office, PUDA, SAS Nagar. Thereafter, it was moved to the Legal Branch of PUDA and the competent authority had granted the requisite approval for filing the Appeal. Further, the file was sent to the Chief Administrator on 09.07.2025 and to Legal Branch of PDA. After obtaining the approvals, the record of the case was sent to the Counsel on 11.07.2025 for filing the Appeal. The case file was also sent to the Account Branch for making the requisite calculation of the amount to be deposited at the time of filing of the Appeal. Further it has been submitted that the Appeal was prepared by the Counsel and it was received on 14.07.2025. Thereafter, it was sent to the Legal Branch on the same day for vetting and then the same was sent back to the Counsel for filing the Appeal along with the draft of the requisite amount. Further, it has been submitted that the delay in filing of the Appeal was neither willful nor intentional but it was due to procedural formalities, as the file had remained in movement from one table to another for taking necessary approvals and permissions. The Appellant will suffer an irreparable loss, in case the delay in filing of the Appeal is not condoned and as such the Appeal be condoned and the Appeal be heard and decided on merits. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of case of Hemlata Verma v. M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No.5131 of

2019 decided on 01.07