Condonation of delay requires proof of sufficient cause and active diligence; a party cannot blame previous counsel for professional misconduct to justify an inordinate delay without providing cogent evidence, especially when the appellant was aware of the proceedings.

This appeal has been filed by the opposite party – Sh. Abhishek Rattan Pal, Proprietor of M/s A. R. Constructions Co., for setting aside order dated 11.06.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’) vide which Consumer Complaint No.424 of 2023 filed by Sh. Rattan Singh (respondent herein) was party allowed. It may be stated here that thereafter, the respondent preferred appeal No.251 of 2024 before this Commission seeking modification and enhancement of the relief already awarded by the District Commission vide the above order dated 11.06.2024. The said appeal was partly allowed by this Commission vide order dated 04.12.2024 and the impugned order was modified in the following manner:-

“16. Keeping in view the above discussion, this appeal stands partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Commission is modified and respondent/opposite party is directed as under:-

(i) To refund the appellant/complainant, excess amount of Rs.7,90,051/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt of the same onwards;

(ii) To pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment and injury to the appellant/complainant.

(iii) To pay cost of litigation of Rs.35,000/- to the appellant/complainant.

(iv) The directions given above, be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the awarded amounts shall entail penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.”

2] It is apposite to mention here that there is a huge delay of 602 days (as per office 595 days) in filing this appeal, for condonation whereof, the appellant has also moved an application bearing IA No.186 of 2026. In the application, it has been stated by the appellant that the delay in filing the present appeal occurred primarily due to fraud, collusion and misconduct of his previous counsel, Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, who allegedly connived with the respondent/complainant in procuring the impugned award dated 11.06.2024, falsely represented to the appellant that an appeal had been filed on his behalf, whereas in fact no such appeal was filed and only the respondent’s appeal for enhancement was pending, in which the said counsel appeared but failed to raise proper grounds and got the matter allowed in favour of the respondent in collusion with him. It has further been stated that the appellant remained vigilant throughout, having orally instructed his counsel and also sent handwritten notes on WhatsApp containing the grounds of challenge. It has further been stated that the appellant came to know of the said conspiracy only on 17.11.2025 when non-bailable warrants were executed and he was produced before the District Commission. It has further been stated that on confronting the counsel, no satisfactory explanation was given and even the case brief/documents were withheld till 05.12.2025. It has further been stated that thereafter, while intending to engage the present counsel, the appellant suffered an acute ischemic stroke due to hypertension on the night of 02.01.2026 and remained admitted in Max Hospital, Mohali till 10.01.2026. It has further been stated that even thereafter, he continued in a serious vegetative condition, causing further unavoidable delay though despite poor health, he contacted the present counsel on 05.03.2026, whereupon the present appeal was filed without any further delay. Lastly it has been prayed that delay in filing the appeal be condoned, appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

3] On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent as well respondent himself strenuously contested the grounds raised in the application for condonation of delay orally. It has been argued that the appellant, in order to make out a case for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, is trying to shift the entire burden on his previ