An applicant seeking condonation of delay must provide a clear, day-to-day explanation for the entire duration of the delay. Vague assertions of procedural oversight or office process do not constitute 'sufficient cause' to override 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 has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) to challenge the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed in CC No.73 of 2024 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur (in short the “District Commission”) whereby the Complaint had been disposed off.

I.A. No.950 of 2025

2. I.A. No.950 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 154 days in filing of the Appeal. Said Application has been supported by an Affidavit.

3. Notice in the Application for condonation of delay as well as in the main Appeal was issued to the Respondent for 25.09.2025. Thereafter, reply to the Application was filed. The arguments were addressed from both the sides.

4. Sh. Vinay Puri Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the order was passed by the District Commission on 17.12.2024 and the Applicant applied for the certified copy of the order which was prepared on 10.01.2025 and copy thereof was dispatched on 10.01.2024. Thereafter, it was received by the Applicant by hand on 14.01.2025. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Appellant contacted his local Counsel who was contesting the Complaint before the District Commission for filing the Appeal before this Commission. The Managing Director of the Company was on business tour so the permission to file the Appeal and to contest the case was to be obtained. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the permission was granted and one Kuldeep Kumar was authorized to contest the case vide Resolution dated 25.02.2025. Thereafter, the record of the District Commission was obtained and the Appellant had further approached the Counsel at Chandigarh on 07.03.2025 and all relevant record was handed over to the Counsel. Further, the documents were prepared and draft was also prepared and all documents and draft were handed over to the Counsel at Chandigarh on 18.04.2025 and thereafter the case was filed through online portal on 21.04.2025. However, the demand draft was wrongly prepared and it was returned for preparing it correctly. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the demand draft was received after necessary correction and thereafter for taking approval some time was required but in the meantime the demand draft was misplaced by the employee of the Company and it was found on 25.07.2024. Learned Counsel has further submitted that thereafter it was handed over to the Counsel at Chandigarh. Further, it has been submitted that the delay of 154 days has occurred which is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances which was beyond the control of the Appellant. At the end, it has been submitted that the delay of 154 days be condoned. Learned Counsel has relied upon judgments, i.e. “Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji & others” 1987 AIR 1353, “Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. Virender Kumar” decided on 22.10.2024 (NC) and “M/s Crest Constructions Vs. Borivali Chandralok CHS Limited” SLP(C) No.894 of 2022, decided on 04.02.2025 (SC) in support of his arguments.

5. Mr. Mukand Gupta Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that long delay has occurred in filing of the Appeal which has not properly been explained. Convincing reasons are not there and the detail of causing delay have not been properly explained. Learned Counsel has further submitted that wrong facts have been mentioned in the grounds and even in