An application for condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act must provide a specific, day-to-day explanation and demonstrate 'sufficient cause'. Vague or casual averments of 'bonafide reasons' by a negligent or inactive party do not justify overturning the statutory period of limitation.

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

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The Appellant/OP No.4 has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) to challenge the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed in CC No.465 of 2024 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short the “District Commission”) whereby the Complaint had been admitted.

2. At the time of filing of the Appeal, M.A. No.539 of 2025 was also filed for condonation of delay but subsequently said Application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.05.2025 on the ground that there were certain inadvertent mistakes in the Application and liberty was sought to file fresh with better particulars.

I.A. No.666 of 2025

3. Second Application, i.e. I.A. No.666 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 150 days in filing of the Appeal. Said Application has been supported by an Affidavit.

4. Notice in the Application was issued to the Respondents for 18.09.2025. However, Respondents were not served for want of correct address and thereafter, the Respondents were served by way of Publication of notice in the Newspaper “Punjab Tribune” dated 19.01.2026.

5. Mr. Deepanshu Mehta Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the notice issued in the case was never served upon the Appellant/Applicant and this fact was never brought to the notice of the Applicant. The matter came to the notice of the Appellant/Applicant through Counsel of the Appellant who was appearing in some other case. The Complaint was listed for hearing on 06.01.2025 before the District Commission and on that date it was declared holiday on account of Gurpurab. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on 07.01.2025. On that day, i.e. 07.01.2025, the Appellant/Applicant appeared before the District Commission and filed detailed reply wherein certain preliminary objections were raised that the Complainant had no cause of action qua Appellant/Applicant as the Appellant/Applicant had segregated from the Company w.e.f. 18.02.2010. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has further submitted that cause of action arose against the Company on 27.07.2013, when the Complainant had executed Buyers Agreement with the Company. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 03.02.2025 awaiting appearance of other OPs but they did not appear on 03.02.2025. Further, fresh notices by way of dasti process were issued on 03.02.2025 for 15.04.2025. On that date also OPs did not appear and the Complainant had provided fresh address of the OPs and thereafter fresh notices were issued to the OPs on 15.04.2025 for 02.07.2025. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the preliminary objections raised by the Appellant/Applicant were not considered by the District Commission on account of non-appearance of other OPs. Learned Counsel has further submitted that cause of action qua to Appellant/Applicant was continuing as since the Applicant/Appellant had availed legal remedies before the District Commission till 15.04.2025 and the present Appeal was filed on 19.05.2025, accordingly the delay has occurred. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the delay be condoned keeping in view the provisions of law of Limitation Act as it has been provided that the period of legal proceedings has to be excluded from the total delay caused in filing of the Appeal. Further, it has been submitted that the Appellant was appearing through Counsel on each and every dat