National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Col Gurbrinder Singh Mann S/O. Sh. ... vs Chief Administrator Haryana State ... on 17 April, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2026
(Against the Order dated 13.12.2023 in Complaint No. 69/2018 of the
State Commission, Haryana)
WITH
IA/3905/2026 (Condonation of delay)
1. Col. Gurbinder Singh Mann age 72 years,
S/o Sh. Gurinder Singh Mann,
R/o H. No. 160, Sector-12,
Panchkula (Haryana) 134112. Appellants
Versus
1. Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board,
Mandi Bhawan, C-6, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.
2. The Secretary-cum-Executive, Officer,
Market Committee, Sector-20,
Panchkula, Haryana 134116. Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER
For the Appellant Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate (VC)
Dated : 17.04.2026
ORDER (ORAL)
1. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay of 725 days in filing this Appeal. The Appellant thus filed IA No.3905 of 2026 seeking delay condonation. In the said IA, it is contended that the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 was received by the counsel for the Appellant on 10.01.2024, and, thereafter, the same was duly handed over to the Appellant in February, 2024. It is submitted that the Appellant is about 72 years of age and is suffering from multiple and serious ailments. The Appellant has suffered from interstitial pneumonia and Covid-19. He is a war veteran, and FA/217/2026 Page 1 of 8 is been suffering from anxiety and hypertension for a considerable period and remains under continuous medical treatment at the Command Hospital, Western Command, Chandimandir (ECHS). He is also under regular treatment for depression and loss of memory since 01.12.2023, which is duly reflected in the medical case sheet bearing Service No. IC- 31366Y and ECHS Card No. CM00003374696. The Appellant is a senior citizen aged about 72 years and is a retired Colonel who had the honour of commanding his regiment during the Kargil War (Operation Vijay, 1999), for which he was bestowed with a gallantry award. The Appellant invested his post-retirement savings in the said Agro Mall Project with the bona fide intention of securing stable livelihood in old age. However, most dishearteningly despite having made all payments in a timely manner, he was constrained to engage in prolonged and forced litigation solely on account of the acts and conduct of the Respondents. He suffered severe hardship and prejudice as a result thereof. It is also submitted that he is prone to forgetfulness on account of depression and age-related ailments and was unable to travel to New Delhi for engaging counsel and instituting the present appeal before this Commission. Only in November, 2025, he was able to instruct his earlier counsel to prefer this appeal from Panchkula, as it is not feasible for him to undertake long and strenuous journey. The delay in filing this appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but has occurred solely due to the bona fide reasons as set out above. He contended that no prejudice whatsoever shall be caused to the OPs if the delay is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. On the contrary, grave injustice would be caused to him if an opportunity to contest the case on merits is denied. He sought to condone the delay of 725 days in filing the appeal, in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.
FA/217/2026 Page 2 of8
2. The present First Appeal is against the State Commission order dated 13.12.2023. The limitation for filing of the First Appeal before this Commission is 30 days. However, the period of limitation would commence from the date of receipt of the Impugned Order by the Appellant i.e. 19.12.2023. While the limitation lapsed on 17.01.2024, however, the present First Appeal was filed on 12.01.2026. Therefore, there is a delay of 725 days (18.01.2024 to 11.01.2026) in filing of the present First Appeal.
3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ram Lal and Ors. vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361", has observed as under:
"It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant. "
4. The test to be applied while dealing with such a case is whether the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "RB Ramlingam vs. RB Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) (2) Scale 108" has held:
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition."FA/217/2026 Page 3 of 8
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCO 578" has observed:-
"while deciding the application filed, for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special periods of limitation have been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and that the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated appeals and First Appeals are entertained11.
6. To condone such delay in filing, the Appellant needs to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the FA after lapse of stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' was explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2014 SC 746 that:-
"9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient"
is "adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the CCcts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisCCctory application is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose."
FA/217/2026 Page 4 of8
7. In Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), the NCDRC held:-
"12 we are not satisfied with the cause shown to justify the delay of 590/601 days. Day to day delay has not been explained. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Anshul Aggawal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes, will get defeated if the appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained.''
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lingeswaran Etc. Vs Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal(C) Nos. 2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022 has held that:-
"5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Once it was found even by the learned trial Court that delay has not been properly explained and even there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay, thereafter, the matter should rest there and the condonation of delay application was required to be dismissed. The approach adopted by the learned trial court that, even after finding that, in absence of any material evidence it cannot be said that the delay has been explained and that there are no merits in the application, still to condone the delay would be giving a premium to a person who CCils to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Popat Bahiru Goverdhane vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765 is required to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. "
FA/217/2026 Page 5,of 8
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs. & Ors. Vs The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Civil Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 decided on 08.04.2024 held:
"30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra)."
10. From the above Hon'ble Apex Court orders, it is clear that 'sufficient cause' means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and that the applicant must satisfy that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting its case. Unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, a Court should not normally allow the application for Condonation of delay under this Act.
11. The consumer protection law inherently mandates summery procedures and it is essential for the Appellant to ensure timely filing of this appeal or explain the delay with reasonable and justifiable reasons. The statutory timeline for filing the First Appeal is well defined. Examination of the material on record and arguments advanced by the learned Counsel reveals that the impugned order in the case was passed on 13.12.2023 and the period of limitation, commenced from the date of receipt of the order on 19.12.2023. While the limitation lapsed on 17.01.2024, it is FA/217/2026 Page 6 of 8 admitted position that the present First Appeal No. 217 of 2026 against the State Commission order dated 13.12.2023 was filed on 12.01.2026. Therefore, there is a delay of 725 days (18.01.2024 to 11.01.2026) in filing of the present First Appeal, which the Appellant needs to explain as required under law.
12. It is clear position that while the limitation lapsed on 17.01.2024 and the Appellant was expected to file the same within the stipulated limitation period, the First Appeal was filed on 12.01.2026. Thus, there was 725 days delay which needs to be explained by the Appellant. However, he failed to show sufficient reason or cause for delay of each day as required under law.
13. The reasons stated in the instant case are routine in nature and grossly inadequate to justify such protracted delay. There is no justification for such undue delay while facts of the case are clearly known to the Appellant otherwise. The reasons explained do not reflect that the Appellant took necessary actions under law in time. With due regard to the statutory provisions, precedents discussed above and the facts of the case, the Appellant failed to show sufficient cause for such undue delay. Therefore, the prayer in Application filed seeking Condonation of delay cannot be granted and accordingly, the same is disallowed on the above grounds.
14. In view of the foregoing, the IA No. 3905 of 2026 filed by the Appellant is disallowed. Consequently, the First Appeal No. 217 of 2026 is dismissed.
FA/217/2026 Page 7 of 8r
15. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
i --
r Sd/<
( AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM, Retd.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
( ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.)
MEMBER
Sangeeta/Court-4/Rajesh/8
FA/217/2026 Page 8 of 8