State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Sarvpreet Kaur vs Sukhjit Kaur Saini on 18 November, 2025
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
1.
I. A. Nos.1469 & 1471 of 2025
In/and
First Appeal No.804 of 2025
Date of Institution : 29.10.2025
Date of Reserve : 06.11.2025
Date of Decision : 18.11.2025
1. Dr.Sarvpreet Kaur aged about 53 years, Wd/o Late
S.GurindraBir Singh resident of H.No.3525, Street No.10,
Block-A, SGM Nagar, NIT, Faridabad -121001, Second
Address: Dr.Sarvpreet Kaur, Associate Professor,
Department of Physics, Post Graduate Government College
for Girls, Sector 11, Chandigarh.
2. Ms.Jasnoor Kaur D/o late S.Gurindra Bir Singh, resident of
H.No.3525, Street No.10, Block-A, SGM Nagar, NIT,
Faridabad-122001.
3. Galaxy Trust, SCF 23 Basement, Didar Nagar, Jhungiana
Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing
Trustee.
4. Gurjeet Singh Son of S. Avtar Singh resident of House
No.3525, Block-E, Street No.10, S.G.M. Nagar, NIT
Faridabad, Haryana;
5. Karamjeet Singh son of S. Avtar Singh resident of House
No.3525, Block-E, Street No. 10, S.G.M. Nagar, NIT
Faridabad, Haryana.
6. Jaspreet Singh Son of S. Sukhwinder Singh Saini resident of
Flat No. 105, Shubh CGHS-3, Sector-21-D, Faridabad,
Haryana.
.....Appellants/Opposite parties No.2,3,5, 7 to 9
Versus
1. Sukhjit Kaur Saini wife of Shri Jasbir Singh.
2. Jasbir Singh son of Shri Darshan Singh Sani.
Both residents of Flat NO.G-002, Block D-I, Paras Panorama,
Sector 126, SAS Nagar, Mohali, at present residing at 18,
RYECROFT Road, London, SW 16 3EG, London.
through their Special Power of Attorney Shri Sukhwinder
Singh son of Shri Gurpreet Singh, A-278, WAVE Estate,
Sector 85, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Respondent/Complainant
3. M/s Galaxy Developers, SCF No.99, Phase 3B2, S.A.S.
Nagar, Mohali (Punjab), through its Partners namely Gurindra
I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 2
In/and
First Appeal No 804 of 2025
Bir Singh son of late S. Baldev Singh Pabla (since deceased)
and S. Baldev Singh Pabla (since deceased) through their
legal heirs.
4. Gurindra Partap Singh Son of late S. Baldev Singh Pabla
resident of 1747, Phase 3-B-2, Sector-60, SAS Nagar,
Mohali, being legal heir of late S. Baldev Singh Pabla.
.....Proforma Respondents/Opposite parties No.1 & 4
2.
I. A. Nos.1473 & 1475 of 2025
In/and
First Appeal No.805 of 2025
Date of Institution : 29.10.2025
Date of Reserve : 06.11.2025
Date of Decision : 18.11.2025
1. Dr.Sarvpreet Kaur aged about 53 years, Wd/o Late
S.GurindraBir Singh resident of H.No.3525, Street No.10,
Block-A, SGM Nagar, NIT, Faridabad -121001, Second
Address: Dr.Sarvpreet Kaur, Associate Professor,
Department of Physics, Post Graduate Government College
for Girls, Sector 11, Chandigarh.
2. Ms.Jasnoor Kaur D/o late S.Gurindra Bir Singh, resident of
H.No.3525, Street No.10, Block-A, SGM Nagar, NIT,
Faridabad-122001.
3. Galaxy Trust, SCF 23 Basement, Didar Nagar, Jhungiana
Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing
Trustee.
4. Gurjeet Singh Son of S. Avtar Singh resident of House
No.3525, Block-E, Street No.10, S.G.M. Nagar, NIT
Faridabad, Haryana;
5. Karamjeet Singh son of S. Avtar Singh resident of House
No.3525, Block-E, Street No. 10, S.G.M. Nagar, NIT
Faridabad, Haryana.
6. Jaspreet Singh Son of S. Sukhwinder Singh Saini resident of
Flat No. 105, Shubh CGHS-3, Sector-21-D, Faridabad,
Haryana.
I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 3
In/and
First Appeal No 804 of 2025
.....Appellants/Opposite parties No.2,3,5, 7 to 9
Versus
1. Rajinder Singh Thiara son of Balbir Singh.
2. Nirmal Kaur Thiara wife of Rajinder Singh Thiara.
Both residents of Village and Post Office Ahrana Kalan,
District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
At present residents of 128, Quebc Road, IIford, Essex,
United Kingdom through their Special Power of Attorney Shri
Kamaljeet Singh resident of Village and Post Office Ahrana
Kalan, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
through their Special Power of Attorney Shri Sukhwinder
Singh son of Shri Gurpreet Singh, A-278, WAVE Estate,
Sector 85, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Respondent/Complainant
3. M/s Galaxy Developers, SCF No.99, Phase 3B2, S.A.S.
Nagar, Mohali (Punjab), through its Partners namely
S.Baldev Singh Pabla (since deceased) through their legal
heirs.
4. Gurindra Partap Singh Son of late S. Baldev Singh Pabla
resident of 1747, Phase 3-B-2, Sector-60, SAS Nagar,
Mohali, being legal heir of late S. Baldev Singh Pabla.
.....Proforma Respondents/Opposite parties No.1 & 4
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
orders dated 06.08.2024 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member Present (F.A. No.804 of 2025):-
For the appellants : Sh.I.S.Luthra, Advocate I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 4 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of the above noted two appeals, which have been preferred by the same appellants/opposite parties No. 2, 3, 5, 7 to 9 against the same orders dated 06.08.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act'), was partly allowed by passing the following order:
9. Consequently, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to handover possession of Flat on the Ground Floor in the Project of OP No.1, namely "Palm 25", Amazon-
3, Sector 123, New Sunny Enclave, bearing No.1221-A to the complainants, complete in all respects along with occupation/completion certificates, as per allotment letter dated 18.03.2017, Ex.C-2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order at the first instance. However, if the complainants do not want to take over possession of the flat, in question in that eventuality they will give written intimation to the Ops within a period of one month from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order and thereafter, the Ops will refund deposited amount of Rs.22.00 lakhs along with interest @9% per annum from the promised date of possession till the date of receipt of intimation from the complainant for not taking over the possession, within a period of 30 days after lapse of period of one month from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @12% per annum till actual refund. It is further ordered that if the Ops are able to give possession of the flat in question within the aforesaid period of one month, in that eventuality the complainants will be entitled to interest @9% per annum I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 5 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 on the deposited amount of Rs.22.00 lakhs from the promised date of possession by the Ops till the actual date of handing over of possession. The Ops are further directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.2.00 lakh as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainants. All the Ops are jointly and severally held liable to comply with this order."
Facts are taken from F.A. No.804 of 2025. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
M.A. No.1471 of 2025 (Delay)
2. This order will dispose of the application filed with F.A. No.804 of 2025 under Second Proviso to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for condonation of delay of 205 days in filing of the appeal.
3. The present application has been filed by the applicants/appellants on the ground that the judgment was passed on 06.08.2024 but the copy of the same was received by the applicant/appellant No.1 on 19.02.2025 at her college. It is further submitted that the applicants along with appeal filed an Interim Application under 2nd proviso to Section 41 of CP Act, 2019 for exemption/waiver from deposit 50% in terms of judgment dated 06.08.2024 on 13.03.2025 but the same was neither numbered nor listed for decision on merits. Thereafter, the applicants/appellants I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 6 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, by way of CWP No.13994 of 2025, which was disposed of, vide order dated 09.10.2025. Thereafter, order of the Hon'ble High Court was filed to take up the appeal before this Commission. It is submitted that the said appeal was filed within limitation after decision of the civil writ petition. However, the appeal was filed after receipt of copy of the impugned judgment on 19.02.2025 and as such, the delay of 205 days in filing the appeal has been occurred. It is submitted that there is no delay in filing the present appeal after the decision of present writ petition and that the applicants would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the present application is not allowed. Facts of the Appeal
4. The complainants having been attracted by the brochure issued by opposite party No.1, agreed to purchase an apartment on the ground floor in the project launched by opposite party No.1 for her own residential use. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.22.00 lakhs. However, the complainant was informed that if the entire amount was paid in advance, the flat would be allotted at a discounted price. Opposite party No.1 assured delivery of possession within 24 months from the date of payment. The complainants have made full payment of Rs.22.00 lakhs towards the settled price of Apartment in advance with assurance for delivery of possession at an early date. However, the appellants failed to deliver the possession of the Apartment within the stipulated period despite various visits and reminders. The opposite party No.1 disclosed that they will not be in a position to deliver the I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 7 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 possession of the apartment booked by the complainants in their project Palm Groove and offered to deliver the possession of 2 BHK Apartment in their Project named Palm 25, Kharar. Having no other option, they accepted the proposal of the opposite parties to shift to the above said project. An agreement dated 18.03.2017 was executed by opposite party No.1 through its partners in favour of the complainants, which termed as Agreement-cum-Allotment of 2BHK Apartment in Palm 25, Kharar. As per clause 31(a) of the agreement, it is mentioned that in case the possession of the apartment is not taken by the complainants, which they agreed to offer within a period of 12 months from the date of agreement, then holding charges @Rs.10/- per sq.ft. per month were payable for any day of one month or part thereof. Further, as per Clause 31(b) in case there was delay in delivery of possession of flat, then additional compensation @Rs.7/- per sq. ft. per month of the area of the said flat was to be paid towards compensation. In the said agreement, it was further mentioned that in case there is delay of more than 24 months then additional compensation towards the rent @Rs.10,000/- per month will be paid. Since the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession, the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation. The complainants number of times visited the office of opposite party No.1 for delivery of possession but they lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the complainants came to know that the partners of M/s Galaxy Developers -opposite party No.1, namely, Shri Gurindra Bir Singh and Shri Baldev Singh Pabla, had expired in an I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 8 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 accident. Shri Gurindra Bir Singh was survived by his wife, Dr. Sarvpreet Kaur, and minor daughter, Ms. Jasnoor Kaur, opposite parties No.2 and 3, while Shri Baldev Singh Pabla was survived by his son, Shri Gurinder Partap Singh-opposite party No.4. The complainant approached opposite parties No.1 to 4 regarding possession of the flat, but no satisfactory response was received.
5. The complainants also came to know that a Trust titled Galaxy Trust had been constituted by Mrs. Sarvpreet Kaur- opposite party No.6 along with other members, namely, Gurjeet Singh, Karamjeet Singh, and Jaspreet Singh, opposite parties No.7 to 9, vide Trust Deed dated 30.04.2021. As per the terms and conditions of the Trust Deed, it has been recorded that all the assets and liabilities of M/s Galaxy Developers/OP No.1 have been taken over and OP Nos.6 to 9 who are the Founder Members, shall remain Life Members of the Trust and they will be conducting all the business activities. The complainants also handed over a request letter to the opposite parties to refund the amount along with interest and compensation but the opposite parties issued a legal notice dated 09.04.2022 through Sh. Inderjit Singh Luthra, Advocate, Ludhaina with the threat to involve them in a false criminal case. This act and conduct of the opposite parties show that the opposite parties not in a position to deliver the possession or to refund the amount. It is also alleged that the opposite parties have not even complied with the provisions laid down in PAPRA Act. Having no other alternative, the complainants filed the present I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 9 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 complaint before the District Commission seeking the following reliefs:
i) Admit the complaint and issue notice thereof to all the opposite parties;
ii) to deliver the vacant physical possession of the fully developed apartment with all promised amenities along with Completion Certificate from the concerned competent authorities within a period of two months;
iii) to pay interest @12% with quarterly rests on the amount of Rs.22.00 lakhs to the complainants, for causing delay in delivery of possession w.e.f.
01.03.2013 till the date of actual delivery of possession of the Apartment
iv) to pay Rs.6.80 lakhs as compensation as per terms and conditions upto 31.07.2022.
v) to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for causing financial loss, mental and physical harassment.
vi) to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses. On in the alternative
(a) to refund Rs.22.00 lakh with interest @12% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of deposit i.e. 01.03.2013 till the date of its payment.
(b) to pay her Rs.25.00 lakhs for causing financial loss as also the escalation in prices to the complainants and Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental and physical harassment;
I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 10In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025
(c) To pay compensation as per the terms and conditions to the tune of Rs.6.80 lakhs upto 31.07.2022 and thereafter also till the date of refund of the amount;
(d) To pay Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 14.09.2023.
7. Whereas OP Nos. 2, 3, and 5 to 9 appeared and filed their written statements, raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against them, as they are in no way associated with the complainants within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. They further pleaded that the complaint has been filed with mala fide intentions. The complainants themselves have admitted that OP Nos. 2 and 6 are Associate Professors in the Department of Physics, Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh; OP No. 3 is the daughter of OP No. 6; OP No. 5 is a registered charitable trust; and OP Nos. 7 to 9 are the Managing Trustee and Trustees of OP No. 5.
8. It is contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as it involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring elaborate oral and documentary evidence, and therefore only the Civil Court has jurisdiction. The answering OPs further asserted that they are neither partners nor authorized signatories of OP No. 1; hence, the complaint is not maintainable against them. I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 11
In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 They also pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. The documents placed on record by the complainants are alleged to be inadmissible and false, and do not raise any allegations against the answering OPs. The complaint is admitted to the extent of demise of Gurindra Bir Singh and Baldev Singh Pabla in a tragic accident, which rendered OP Nos. 2 and 6 as widows, the answering OPs denied all other averments in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. Upon notice, OP No. 4 appeared and filed a written statement raising preliminary objections. It is pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants have concealed material facts and fabricated a false and vague story to mislead this Commission. The relief sought is purely civil in nature, based on frivolous assertions and non-cogent documents, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. OP No. 4 submitted that the complainants allegedly paid Rs. 22 lakh on 01.03.2013, but thereafter remained completely silent for nearly a decade, with no record of any grievance raised until March/April 2022. This itself shows baseless nature of the complaint. It is further pointed out that a civil suit titled Gurinder Pratap Singh vs. General Public & Ors. (CS/595/2019) is already pending before the Court of Sh. Devnoor Singh, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), SAS Nagar, wherein OP No. 4 has challenged the genuineness of the Partnership Deed dated 07.03.2012, alleging forged signatures of his late father, Baldev Singh Pabla. Thus, the matter is already sub judice before the Civil Court.
I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 12
In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025
10. OP No. 4 further contended that the complainants have not produced any document to show his involvement, direct or indirect, with them or with OP No. 1, and therefore arraying him as a party is unjustified. He stated that he retired in January 2021 as Director/Electrical (PSPCL Cadre), Water Resources Department, Government of Punjab, and has no right, claim, title, or benefit whatsoever in the concerned firm. Denying all remaining allegations, OP No. 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the contentions of the parties, the complaint was partly allowed, vide impugned order dated 06.08.2024.
12. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 and to allow their appeal along with an application for condoning the delay of 205 days.
13. We have heard the contentions of the appellants on the application for condonation of delay as well as merits of the appeal at the preliminary stage and have gone through the documents available on the file. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
14. The appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions to pass the appropriate orders for entertaining the application for waiving off the pre-deposit. The Hon'ble High Court passed the following order in CWP No.13994 of 2025: I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 13
In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 "Present applications have been filed for correction in the judgment/order dated 03.09.2025 passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners submits that keeping in view the order passed, the Tribunal is under the obligation to look into the aspect that whether the application filed by applicant for waiving off the pre-deposit is to be entertained or not but the same is not even being listed for the appropriate orders of the Court, which is causing prejudice to the applicant- petitioners and the same needs to be clarified.
The Forum is requested to look into the said application and pass appropriate order qua the waiving off the pre-deposit as it is being prayed for by the applicant- petitioners.
It is made clear herein that the decision qua the aforementioned aspect solely depends upon the Forum and no order on merits that whether the pre-deposit is to be waived off or not is being passed by this Court.
CMs stand disposed of."
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE October 09, 2025"
15. In pursuance of the said order, we deem it appropriate to first take up and decide the application bearing I.A. No.1469 of 2025.
I.A. No.1469 of 2025 (Exemption/Waiver)
16. This application has been filed by the appellants/applicants seeking exemption or waiver from depositing the prescribed I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 14 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 amount required for filing the appeal under the second proviso to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appellants/applicants have contended that the respondents/complainants have not paid even a single penny to them, as recorded in the impugned judgment, and therefore, the same cannot be executed against them. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant No.2 is the daughter of applicant/appellant No.1, is studying and is fully dependent on the applicant/appellant No.1. The applicant/appellants No.4 to 6 are the trustees of the registered charitable trust i.e. appellant No.3 constituted by the applicant/appellant No.1. It has been prayed that the present application be allowed and exemption/waiver be granted from compliance with the condition of making a mandatory pre-deposit of 50% of the amount awarded vide judgment dated 06.08.2024.
17. In this regard, we have to go through the provision of court fees as enunciated under Section 41 of the Act. The same is reproduced as under:
"41. Appeal against order of District Commission -
XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX XX
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:"
18. The careful perusal of this provision of the Act reveals that word 'shall' has been used for depositing the court fees as fifty per I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 15 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 cent before filing of the appeal and only then the appeal will be entertained. There is no provision under this Act, which may govern the filing of appeal without any court fees, as alleged by learned counsel for the appellants in this application. This Commission has not been empowered under this Act to waive the court fee, as prayed by the applicants/appellants in this application. This point has also been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its case bearing Civil Appeal No.7098 of 2021 titled Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors., decided on 07.12.2021. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"14. Now in so far as the various orders passed by this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respective appellant(s) by which, the special leave petition(s) have been disposed of directing the appellant(s) to deposit only 50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission are concerned, at the outset, it is noted that in none of the cases any law has been laid down by this Court. It appears that while issuing a notice(s), the appellant(s) was/were directed to deposit 50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission and thereafter without discussing any law and/or considering anything on merits and the scheme of the Act, 2019, more particularly, Section 51 of the Act, 2019, the special leave petition(s) has/have been disposed of. On the contrary, there is a direct binding decision of this Court in the case of Shreenath Corporation and Ors. (supra) laying down the law after discussing the scheme, object and purpose of pre-deposit and the power of the National Commission to grant conditional stay of deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount.I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 16
In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025
15. The sum and substance of the above discussion and our conclusions would be that:-
(i) pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission;
(ii) the object of the said pre-deposit condition is to avoid frivolous appeals;
(iii) the said pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay by the National Commission;
(iv) while considering the stay application in staying the order passed by the State Commission, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay directing the appellant(s) to deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission;
(v) however, at the same time, the National Commission has to assign some cogent reasons and/or pass a speaking order when the conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission is passed subject to deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount either as an ex parte order or after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi) Thus, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission on deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission in the aforesaid manner."
In view of the above law laid down and as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, we do not find any merit in the I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 17 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 application and the same is hereby dismissed being not maintainable.
19. Now, we would address the application bearing I.A. No.1471 of 2025 for condoning the delay of 205 days in filing the appeal.
From the perusal of the application as well as record we found that there is no sufficient or reasonable ground has been mentioned that why and how such a huge delay of 205 days occurred in filing of the appeal. Even, in their application, they failed to give any sufficient reason except taking the plea that they filed a Civil Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions to entertain the application for waiving off the fee.
20. The law is very clear that in the condonation of delay application, the party who is seeking relief has to explain the delay of each and every day with plausible reasons with proof and also to prove that the delay is not caused just to frustrate the claim of the respondent/complainant. As per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 45 days period has been granted for filing the appeal, provided, if any, sufficient cause is given for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period, though the sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act because it would vary from the facts and circumstances of each and every case. Even the limitation period for filing the civil suit for recovery is three years, whereas under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, it is two years and the complaint can be entertained beyond the period of limitation if sufficient cause is shown. Similarly, the prescribed period for filing the appeal, which is 45 days and the proviso, permits the State I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 18 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the limitation period if it has a sufficient ground. This time limit has been prescribed in the Act itself just to expedite the matter in granting the relief to the aggrieved consumers and this cannot be taken as a matter of right and the courts can exercise its powers with discretion to condone the delay with proper explanation.
21. It is so held in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361 titled "Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Limited', as under:
"12. 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."
22. We also fortify the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority", 2011(14) SCC 578 whereby it has been held that while deciding an application for condonation of delay in the cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Court has I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 19 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing the appeal and revision in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated, if the highly belated petitions are to be entertained.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case "Lanka Venkateshwarlu (D) By LRs. Vs. State of A.P. & Others", 2011 (2) RCR Civil -880 (SC), after considering the entire case law on the point of delay, in Para -26 observed as under:-
"Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly".
24. Though, in the present case, in order to bring the case within the ambit of limitation period, learned counsel for the appellants has taken a lame excuse by stating that they had approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions for entertaining the application for waiver of court fee, which itself is not a sufficient ground for condoning the inordinate delay. Moreover, no order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court directing that the period during which the civil writ petition remained I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 20 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 pending before it be excluded. This clearly shows that the appellants have no sufficient ground to produce to condone the delay.
25. In the application the appellants have not given any reason with regard to the delay occurred. In our view, the explanation for above delay is not sufficient for condoning the delay. The Consumer Protection Act is a special Act providing special period of limitation to file the appeals. The very purpose of the Act would be defeated in case the delay is condoned without any sufficient ground. Consequently, we find no ground is made out to condone the inordinate delay of 205 days in filing the appeal in this case. A legal right is already vested in the OPs by efflux of time, which can be taken away on proof of sufficient ground only. Consequently, there is no merit in the application in condonation of delay and the same is hereby dismissed.
Main Appeal
26. Since the applications for exemption/waiver of court fee and for condonation of delay have been dismissed, the appeal, being deficient in the requisite court fee and barred by limitation, is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.
27. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
First Appeal No.805 of 2025
28. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties No.2,3,5, 7 to 9 against the same orders dated 06.08.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 21 In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act'), was partly allowed against the opposite parties by passing the following order:
"9. Consequently, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we partly allow the complaint and direct the Ops to handover possession of Flat located in Palm Groove, Kharar, SAS Nagar (Mohali), now in Sector 123, New Sunny Enclave, SAS Nagar, (Mohali) to the complainants, complete in all respects along with occupation/completion certificates, as per allotment letter dated 02.05.2013, Ex.C-3, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order at the first instance. However, if the complainants do not want to take over possession of the flat, in question in that eventuality they will give written intimation to the Ops within a period of one month from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order and thereafter, the Ops will refund deposited amount of Rs.32.25 lakhs along with interest @9% per annum from the promised date of possession till the date of receipt of intimation from the complainant for not taking over the possession, within a period of 30 days after lapse of period of one month from the date of receipt of free certified copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @12% per annum till actual refund. It is further ordered that if the Ops are able to give possession of the flat in question within the aforesaid period of one month, in that eventuality the complainants will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.32.25 lakhs from the promised date of possession by the Ops till the actual date of handing over of possession. The Ops are further directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.3.00 lakh as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainants.I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 22
In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025 All the Ops are jointly and severally held liable to comply with this order."
M.A. No.1473 of 2025 (Exemption/Waiver)
29. Along with the appeal, the appellants have filed the present application seeking exemption/waiver from depositing the prescribed amount for filing the First Appeal, as required under the Second Proviso to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, mandating a prior deposit of 50% of the amount in terms of the Judgment/Order dated 06.08.2024 passed in CC No.659 of 2022.
30. In view of the findings recorded in M.A. No.1469 of 2025, filed along with F.A. No.804 of 2025, this application is also dismissed.
M.A. No.1475 of 2025 (Delay)
31. This application has also been moved by applicants/appellants for condoning the delay of 203 days in filing the appeal on the ground that after receiving the certified copy of the order they approached this Commission by way of appeal and also moved an application seeking exemption /waiver of deposit of 50% in terms of judgment dated 06.08.2024, but the same was not numbered and nor listed for decision. Thereafter, they approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of filing of CWP No.14976 of 2025 on 03.09.2025, which was disposed of on 09.10.2025 and after that they approached this Commission and in this way a delay of 203 days occurred, which is neither intentional nor willful. I.A. No.1469 & 1471 of 2025 23
In/and First Appeal No 804 of 2025
32. In view of the findings recorded in M.A. No.1471 of 2025, filed along with F.A. No.804 of 2025, this application is also dismissed.
Main Appeal
33. Since the applications for exemption/waiver of court fee and for condonation of delay have been dismissed, the appeal, being deficient in the requisite court fee and barred by limitation, is accordingly ordered to be dismissed.
34. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER November 18th,2025 parmod