State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reema Taneja W/O. Sh. Deepak Taneja vs Omaxe Ltd on 15 December, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/140/2024
(Against the Order dated 20th March 2023 in Complaint CC/87/2019 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi)
WITH
NC/IA/3181/2024 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NC/IA/3182/2024 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)
BALDEV SINGH S/O. LATE SULESH CHAND, HOUSE NO. 151
PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO.151, DEVILI VILLAGE, NEW DELHI-110062
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
OMAXE LTD.
PRESENT ADDRESS - 7, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019
.......Respondent(s)
FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/141/2024
(Against the Order dated 20th March 2023 in Complaint CC/86/2019 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi)
WITH
NC/IA/3183/2024 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NC/IA/3184/2024 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)
REEMA TANEJA W/O. SH. DEEPAK TANEJA
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. 214, SECTOR -19, , HARYANA , FARIDABAD, ,
FARIDABAD,HARYANA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
OMAXE LTD
PRESENT ADDRESS - 7, LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE, , NEW DELHI , KALKAJI, , NEW
DELHI,DELHI.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
MR. ADITYA SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. PRAKHAR SRIVASTAV, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MR. MUKTI BODH, ADVOCATE
DATED: 15/12/2025
ORDER
JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. These two appeals arise out of a similar nature of two separate orders passed on 20.03.2023 in CC/86/2019 and CC/87/2019, whereby the SCDRC, New Delhi dismissed the complaints for non- prosecution. Both the complaints were handled by the same learned counsel and the orders being identical, we have proceeded to hear both the matters simultaneously.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the appearance by the counsel before the State Commission was defaulted and that the appellants were under the impression that the case is being attended to and they were not made aware of the listing of the cases on the dates fixed. The complainants have also alleged that they were not aware of the impugned orders dated 20.03.2023 and it is only when they checked the website on 18.04.2023, that they came to know of the same, whereafter they collected the papers and have preferred these appeals on 31.10.2023 and 05.01.2024, respectively.
3. Thus, the default in appearing before the State Commission as well as the delay in the filing of the present appeals have been explained in the delay condonation applications being IA/3181/2024 and IA/3183/2024, which are commonly worded. We are reproducing the contents of one of the applications as applications in both the cases are identical. The contents of IA/3183/2024 are extracted hereinunder:
"1. The present First Appeal is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the Final Order dated 20.03.2023 of the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein the Hon'ble Commission dismissed the Complaint filed by the Appellant for default.
2. The Complaint was last listed on 20.03.2023 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had dismissed the Complaint in Default thereby holding that:
"A perusal of the record shows that the complainant has not appeared since long. Neither the complainant nor his counsel had appeared on 25.04.2022. 13.07.2022 and 25.08.2022 i.e. last date of hearing.
Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the complainant. It appears that the complainant is not interested to pursue his case.
Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution. File be consigned to the record room."
3. It is submitted that the Complaint/ Appellant was filed in the Year 2014 and was listed on several occasions previously. The Complainant/Appellant had appeared on all previous occasions through its Counsel but after 25.04.2022, the Counsel of the Complainant / Appellant stopped appearing in the matter which was also not brought to the notice of the Complainant/ Appellant as well. The Complainant/ Appellant was not made aware of the listing of the Complaint on various dates and due to the same, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the Complaint for Non- Prosecution.
4. The Complainant/ Appellant was not aware of the passing of the Order dated 20.03.2023 and only came to know about the same when he checked the website on 18.04.2023. Thereafter, the Complainant /Appellant arranged for the complete set of papers of the Complaint / Appellant which took considerable time and the entire set of papers were made available to the Fresh Counsel only on 28.04.2023.
5. The Complainant/ Appellant was under the impression that he is being duly represented before this Hon'ble Court and presumed that fresh steps had been taken and their counsel would represent them in the hearing on 20.03.2023. But only after the passing of the Order dated 20.03.2023 vide which this Hon'ble Court had dismissed the Complaint / Appellant in Default, the Plaintiff became aware that the Complaint has been dismissed.
6. The Complainant/Appellant had to engage other counsel in order to restore the present Complaint. and thus the delay has been attributed in the present case.
7. The Complainant / Appellant states that the Non-Appearance on 20.03.2023 in the present Complainant was not intentional and was owing to the above reasons, which were not willful and the present Complaint be restored to its original form, in the interest of justice.
PRAYER In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
a. Condone the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal and restore complaint no. CC/87/2019 which was dismissed in default on 20.03.2023, in the interest of justice.
b. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Learned counsel urges that these are genuine and bonafidely explanations showing sufficient cause for non-appearance before the State Commission as also the reported delay of 261 days and 195 days, respectively in the presentation of the present appeals. FA/140/2024 has been filed on 05.01.2024 and FA/141/2024 has been filed on 31.10.2023.
5. It is in this background that the learned counsel for the complainants has urged that the default has been appropriately explained for not appearing before the State Commission and the delay in the filing of the present appeals have been explained with sufficient cause.
6. Before we proceed to deal with these two submissions there is something very peculiar, which we find from both the complaints that are the prayers made therein. The same are identical in both the cases, which are extracted hereinunder:
7. Strangely enough the manner in which the complaints have been drafted is absolutely causal, even though the response had been filed by the respondents before the State Commission and to their written statements rejoinders were also filed. A description thereof indicates that the project that was developed in the name of Omaxe Hills Faridabad. The complainants were allotted their respective units and delay compensation was also paid. The possession was also taken by the complainants and the conveyance deeds were registered in their favour. These facts are not disputed. The payments were made after making adjustments and in the aforesaid background the deeds came to be executed way back in the year 2014. The complaints were filed in the year 2019 being CC/86/2019 and CC/87/2019. The manner in which the complaints were filed and the background above, later on went unattended after the covid and were dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.03.2023.
8. These two appeals have been filed with delay, FA/140/2024 with the delay of 261 days and FA/141/2024 with a delay of 195 days with similar averments made regarding the explanation for default and also for the delay.
9. A perusal of the explanation given is about the lawyer not having communicated or the appellants have not received any communication about the date fixed and the orders passed. This is clearly an excuse shifting the burden on the shoulders of the counsel without any material to support these contentions. We are therefore not inclined to accept these explanations as they do not inspire any confidence. While entertaining these appeals this Commission had expressed its doubt about the explanation given as recorded in the order dated 07.03.2024, which is extracted herein under:
"The Appeal has been called out. It is reported to be delayed by 261 days. The challenge raised in the Appeal is to the Order of the State Commission dated 20.03.2023 which is extracted herein under:
"Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has not appeared since long. Neither the complainant nor his counsel had appeared on 25.04.2022, 13.07.2022 and 25.08.2022 i.e. last date of hearing.
Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the complainant. It appears that the complainant is not interested to pursue his case.
Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution. File be consigned to the record room."
A perusal thereof indicates that the Complainant remained unrepresented and the learned Counsel did not appear on 4 consecutive dates including when the matter was taken up on 20.03.2023. The absence of the Counsel is sought to be explained in Paragraph No. 10 of the Memo of Appeal and in Ground No. 'E' that are extracted herein under:
"10. The Appellant had appeared on all previous occasions through its Counsel but after 25.04.2022, THE Counsel of the Appellant stooped appearing in the matter which was also not brought to the notice of the Appellant as well. The Appellant was not made aware of the listing of the Complaint on various dates and due to the same, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the Complaint for Non- Prosecution and for default.
E The Appellant was under the impression that he is being duly represented before this Hon'ble Court and presumed that fresh steps had been taken and that its counsel would represent them in the hearing on 20.03.2023. But only after the passing of the Order dated 20.03.2023 vide which this Hon'ble Court had dismissed the Complaint if Default, the Appellant became aware that the Complaint has been dismissed."
The submission raised is that the Appellant was under the impression that he is being duly represented but only after the passing of the Order he came to know that the Complaint had been dismissed in default. It is also stated that the Appellant was not made aware of the dates of listing.
There is no other explanation nor is there any indication as to why the learned Counsel for the Appellant repeatedly did not appear before the State Commission and the matter went on being listed from 24.04.2022 to 20.03.2023 on four occasions.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that he will file a better Affidavit in order to sustain the plea that has been taken in the Appeal keeping in view the fact that the Complainant would be put to an irreparable loss as they would be losing an opportunity to contest the case on merits. The delay in filing of this Appeal has to be considered in the background above.
Let a proper Affidavit be filed within six weeks. List on 05.08.2024."
10. An additional affidavit has been filed in FA/140/2024 vide diary no. 26859 dated 01.08.2024 and a similar affidavit vide diary no. 26860 in FA/141/2024, where once again similar averments have been made, which are nothing else but a repetition of what had been stated in the delay condonation application as already extracted hereinabove. The explanation with regard to the default of the counsel in appearing before the State Commission and the delay in the filing of the present appeals have been explained with no fresh explanation that may be taken to be creditworthy for the purpose of explaining the delay or condoning the same. Paragraphs 4 to 8 of the said affidavit are extracted hereinunder:
"4. I state that the Counsel representing the Appellant did not inform that the case is being listed on various dates and this was primarily owing to the fact that during the Covid-19 pandemic, there were automatic allotment of dates by the Ld. State Commission and the case was adjourned on various dates earlier as well. Thereafter, when regular hearing commenced before the Ld. State Commission, the Counsel did not keep the Appellant informed of the listing of the case. The Appellant was under the impression that case is not getting listed, since during Covid-19 as well the case was not being taken up and the same situation is exiting during 2022- 23 as well. The Counsel on various occasions was contacted by the Appellant but was informed that case has not been listed.
5. I state that the Counsel for the Appellant was also not aware of the listing of the Complaint on 25.04.2022, 13.07.2022 and 25.08.2022 before the Ld. State Commission. There was по communication from the Counsel of the Appellant that matter is being listed and steps have to be taken in this regard. The Appellant who was not well aware of the working of the website of the Ld. State Commission did not regularly follow up and trusted the information being provided by the Counsel.
6. I state that the Appellant had not given a No Objection Certificate ("NOC") to another counsel nor any new counsel was engaged in the matter. Therefore, there was no occasion for the counsel for the Appellant to withdraw from the case and not appear on listing dates. The counsel on its own stopped appearing before the Ld. State Commission.
7. I state that the case was for listed for final hearing on 20.03.2023 and there was no occasion for the Appellant to not prosecute the case after taking the case to its conclusive end. On account of the default of the counsel before the Ld. Commission, the Appellant has made been made to suffer which would cause great prejudice to the Appellant.
8. I state that the Appellant only became aware of the dismissal of the Complaint for default in the month of July, 2023. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the Appeal since the Complainant was not aware of the case status of the Complaint and could not challenge the order before this Hon'ble Commission."
11. The aforesaid averments are neither justified nor do they give any proper explanation and rather blame the counsel for not having given proper information to the complainants as already noted above there is no material to substantiate the same. There are no details about the counsel, nor any other averments that would give an explanation worth the name.
12. In these circumstances we find that a judgment of the Delhi High Court to be an appropriate decision, the ratio whereof is sufficient to reject the contentions raised in this regard. Such an excuse has been deprecated by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rahul Mavai v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9050, wherein the observations made are extracted herein under:
"4. We also disapprove the unwholesome practice of seeking to explain away inordinate delay and laches on approaching the Court on the mere ground that the Counsel who had been dealing with, or entrusted, the matter, was tardy, negligent, or indolent. At times, this assertion is sought to be supported by an assertion that the litigant has approached the Bar Council concerned against the counsel.
5. We emphatically disapprove of this practice of shifting, to the shoulders of the Counsel, the negligence in approaching the Court. It is easy, in such circumstances, to file a complaint before the Bar Council and seek to explain away the delay. We deprecate this. A litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is entrusted to Counsel.
6. That said, if, in fact, the Counsel has been negligent, the litigant would have to place, on record, material to indicate that she, or he, has been in touch with the Counsel during the entire period of delay, and that the Counsel has been misleading her, or him. This material must be acceptable, and convincing. The Court has to be satisfied that, in fact, the Counsel has been misleading the client, and that this explains the entire period of delay in approaching the Court. Of course, if the Court is so satisfied, and an innocent litigant has been led up the garden path by an unscrupulous Counsel, the court would not allow injustice to be done, and would, in an appropriate case, condone the delay."
13. Accordingly the explanation given for non-appearance before the State Commission is unsatisfactory and is unacceptable for all the reasons stated hereinabove.
14. Coming to the delay in the filing of the appeals, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan & Ors., 2014 (4) SCC 163 to urge that the communication between the counsel and the client was taken as a consideration while condoning the delay. It is urged that a liberal view should be taken in the matter and the discretion should be exercised in the background of the present case. We have considered the aforesaid ratio and we would like to point out that the Apex Court has recently at least in four judgments rendered its opinion once again elaborately on the issue of limitation.
15. Reference be had to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare & Bros. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151. The aforesaid judgment was delivered in a case where the delay was being prayed to be condoned in a matter of arbitration where the State of UP had filed an appeal that was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The explanation given was the usual administrative rigmarole and then the Court considered the other judgments on the issue relating to sufficient cause to hold that it should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, provided there is no lack of bonafides.
16. It is undoubtedly true that the law of limitation has a harsh effect if applied strictly but at the same time, Courts and Tribunals should not ignore the explanation given. However, the Court further went on to observe that when a matter on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim, due to delay, then the delay deserves to be condoned. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
"21. The questions of law purported to be raised in this Special Leave Petition are misconceived. The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant.
22. When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning."
17. The Apex Court once again had the occasion to deal with a delay condonation application in a contest of land acquisition where the delay of around 479 days had been condoned in favour of the Union of India. The aggrieved persons came up to challenge the same and after consideration of the entire law on the subject, the Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, analyzed the approach that has been explained in paragraphs 30 to 32 as follows:
"30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an "explanation" and an "excuse". An "explanation" is designed to give someone all of the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must, however, be taken to distinguish an "explanation" from an "excuse". Although people tend to see "explanation" and "excuse" as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real.
32. An "excuse" is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an "excuse" would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication."
18. In our opinion, an excuse is to free oneself from some blame or seek pardon or any apology but as enunciated by the Apex Court, it can be a pretended reason, and therefore it should be distinguished carefully from a bonafide and genuine explanation. An explanation brings transparency or makes things look plain and simplified signifying truthfulness as against something bewildering or confusing. It tends to give a clear meaning to the underlying motive of the expression.
19. Subsequently, in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 the Apex Court held that the length of delay may not be that material if the cause of delay is sufficiently explained. The observations of the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No. 2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."
20. Recently the Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 600 has reiterated the opinion expressed in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Supra).
21. We find that the reasons given for the delay in the filing of the appeals is once again without any cogent or valid sufficient cause and the explanation is only an excuse which does not in any way amount to an explanation as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (Supra) and Inder Singh (Supra).
The complainants/ appellants have instituted their complaints and appeals without giving any valid explanation for the delay in the background that they have already taken possession and the conveyance deeds had already been executed way back in 2014. The appeals therefore cannot be entertained and the delay having not been explained satisfactorily both the appeals are dismissed.
..................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ..................
BHARATKUMAR PANDYA MEMBER