State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Puda vs Rajeev Thakur on 9 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.760 of 2025
Date of institution : 04.09.2025
Reserved On : 20.02.2026
Date of decision : 09.03.2026
PUDA, Patiala through its Chairman, PUDA Enclave, Nabha, through
its Authorized Signatory now through Estate Officer, Patiala
Development Authority, having its Office at Urban Estate, Phase-2,
Patiala.
....Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Rajeev Thakur aged about 39 years son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar
Thakur, resident of House No.B-35/79, Bakshi Gandha Singh, Patiala.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
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
Present:-
For the Appellant : Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Kartikeya Puri, Advocate
First Appeal No.760 of 2025 2
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Appellant/opposite party (OP) i.e. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) through its Estate Officer has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant had been partly allowed.
2. There was a delay of 206 days in filing of the Appeal. IA No.1348 of 2025 was filed for condonation of delay, which was supported by an Affidavit.
3. Notice of the Application for condonation of delay was issued to the Respondent/Complainant and thereafter the reply to the Application was filed, whereby the contents of the Application have been rebutted.
4. Mr. Shashank Bhandari, learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP has submitted that the impugned order was passed by the District Commission on 10.02.2025 but its certified copy was received by the Appellant on 06.06.2025. Thereafter, it was processed on 06.06.2025 by the concerned Officer of the Branch and the file was sent to the Legal Branch for taking necessary action. Thereafter, the file was processed by the Legal Branch on 20.06.2025 for seeking First Appeal No.760 of 2025 3 approval to engage he Counsel and on receipt of the requisite documents, the file was sent to the Chief Administrator, PDA on 23.06.2025 for seeking requisite approval from the Head Office, PUDA, SAS Nagar. Thereafter, it was moved to the Legal Branch of PUDA and the competent authority had granted the requisite approval for filing the Appeal. Further, the file was sent to the Chief Administrator on 09.07.2025 and to Legal Branch of PDA. After obtaining the approvals, the record of the case was sent to the Counsel on 11.07.2025 for filing the Appeal. The case file was also sent to the Account Branch for making the requisite calculation of the amount to be deposited at the time of filing of the Appeal. Further it has been submitted that the Appeal was prepared by the Counsel and it was received on 14.07.2025. Thereafter, it was sent to the Legal Branch on the same day for vetting and then the same was sent back to the Counsel for filing the Appeal along with the draft of the requisite amount. Further, it has been submitted that the delay in filing of the Appeal was neither willful nor intentional but it was due to procedural formalities, as the file had remained in movement from one table to another for taking necessary approvals and permissions. The Appellant will suffer an irreparable loss, in case the delay in filing of the Appeal is not condoned and as such the Appeal be condoned and the Appeal be heard and decided on merits. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of case of Hemlata Verma v. M/s ICICI First Appeal No.760 of 2025 4 Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal No.5131 of 2019 decided on 01.07.2019 (SC) in support of his contentions.
5. Mr. Kartikeya Puri, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has submitted that the delay has been sought to be condoned on the basis of unconvincing grounds. The Appellant has not mentioned any sufficient explanation for condoning the long delay of 206 days, which is due to alleged internal mechanism. The Application is vague and does not disclose any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay and as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
i) PUDA & Anr. v. Raj Rani FA No.2029 of 2019 decided on 05.01.2024 (NC);
ii) UIIC v. Rajesh Kumar G. Patel FA No.1737 of 2018 decided on 08.06.2024 (NC);
iii) Marina Heights & Ors. v. Harbhajan Singh Tagrah & Anr. RP No.2931 of 2017 decided on 01.01.2024 (NC);
iv) GMADA v. Amanjot Gurbans Singh 2019 (2) CPR 681 (NC);
v) NIAC & Anr. v. Akhtar Bano 2013 (4) CPR 617 (NC);
vi) Raj Rani v. PUDA & Anr. CC No.56 of 2019 decided on 13.06.2019 (Punjab State Commission).
First Appeal No.760 of 2025 5
6. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
7. Admittedly, there is delay of 206 in filing of the Appeal. The sole ground raised by the Appellant for condonation of delay is procedural formalities, such as engaging the Counsel, collecting documents, in moving the file from one office to another for taking the necessary permissions/approvals etc. It is well settled proposition of law that the departmental procedures for filing the Appeal are no ground to condone the delay, as in the modern era of tele- communications, the approvals/permissions can be obtained by sending the files through emails, whatsapp etc. within a short period. Except procedural formalities, no other cogent and convincing grounds have been taken or explained by the Appellant for condoning the long delay of 206 days. The Appellant has taken the matter in a casual way without taking into consideration the rigours of the law of limitation.
8. Similar issue was there in the case of State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I) (2009) 5 SCC 121, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:
"It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the Complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the Complaint if First Appeal No.760 of 2025 6 sufficient cause is shown. The expression, `shall not admit a Complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the Complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder.
As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the Complaint on merits only if the Complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the Complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the Complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside."
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also laid down the settled legal proposition of law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act. It has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. However, the Appellant has not been able to provide adequate and sufficient reasons which prevented him to approach this Commission within the period of limitation.
10. In another case of R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneshwari I (2009) CLT 188 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has also described the test for determining as to whether the petitioner has acted with due diligence or not. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"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."
11. While condoning the delay, the Court has to examine as to whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely device to cover an ulterior purpose. The expression 'sufficient cause' has been First Appeal No.760 of 2025 7 discussed and defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 AIR SCW 6510, which is reproduced as under:
"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", inasmuch 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 facts 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 he 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 satisfactory explanation 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. (See: Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. V. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors, AIR 1964 SC 1336; LalaMatadin V. A.Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal V. Veena alias Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150 L2011 AIR SEW 1233); and ManibenDevraj Shah V. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, AIR 2012 SC 1629: (2012 AIR SCW 2412).
...............
It is a settled legal proposition that 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. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." 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. The legal maxim "dura lexsedlex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.
...........
The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, First Appeal No.760 of 2025 8 or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The Application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature".
[Emphasis supplied]"
12. Further, in another case of Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has advised the Consumer Forums/Commissions to keep in mind while dealing with such type of Applications the special nature of the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an Application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the 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 this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras."
[Emphasis supplied]"
13. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Deo Kumar Singh & Ors. SLP (Civil) Diary NO.13348 of 2019 decided on 09.05.2019 has taken a serious notice of lethargic approach of Government authorities in filing the cases. The relevant portion of said judgment is reproduced as under:
"We are of the view that a clear signal has to be sent to the Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as and when they please, on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any action against the concerned officers. No detail of this delay of 728 days have been First Appeal No.760 of 2025 9 given as if there is an inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Government. The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct.
That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. [2012(3) SCC 563].
We strongly deprecate the casual manner in which the Division Bench was approached and also this Court has been approached; the objective possibly being to get a certificate of dismissal from this Court. This is complete wastage of judicial time and the Petitioners must pay for the same.
We, thus, dismiss the special leave petition on delay and impost cost on the Petitioners of Rs. 20,000/-to be recovered from the officers responsible for this delay and be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, within four weeks. Certificate of recovery be filed in this court."
14. In another case of Lingeswaran Etc. v. Thirunagalingam Petition(s) for SLP (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, the Supreme Court has held in Para-5 as under:
"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 fails 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 v. 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."First Appeal No.760 of 2025 10
15. Further, in the case of State of U.P. through Executive Engineer & ANR. Vs Amar Nath Yadav 2014 (1) CLT-225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para-2 as under:
"The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Departments."
16. Similarly, the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Vs DAC Research and Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd.", 2009(1) Consumer Law Today- 532 has also observed that law of limitation does not give any special exemption/indulgence for relaxation of time limit for a Government/Public Departments. The relevant portion of said judgment as mentioned in Para-5 is reproduced as under:
"Law of limitation does not give any special exemption or indulgence in time limit for relaxation of time limits for a Government Department, especially, when a right has been created in favour of one of the parties".
17. In view of the reasons and discussion as above and also the law as laid down in the judgments as mentioned above, it is apparent that the purpose of Section 69(1) of the Act is to ensure that the provisions of the Act as a beneficial legislation are not diluted through challenges, which prolong the litigation in Consumer Commissions. The object of the Act is speedy disposal of the case of First Appeal No.760 of 2025 11 the consumers. The justification for the condonation of delay is very relevant and in the present case, the purpose of filing the Appeal is only to delay the implementation of the impugned order passed by the District Commission. The reasons are necessary to be seen as to whether the grounds raised in the Application for condonation of delay are sufficient/convincing or not. In the present case, no sufficient reasons have been mentioned by the Appellant in the Application for condonation of delay. The ground of procedural delays cannot be taken into consideration for condoning the unexplained delay and the delay cannot be condoned without the 'sufficient cause' as each and every day's delay is to be explained. However, no 'sufficient cause' or explanation has been mentioned in the Application for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellant/OP is distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
18. Accordingly, finding no force in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant, the IA No.1348 of 2025 for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal is dismissed. Since the Application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, so the Appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
19. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
First Appeal No.760 of 2025 12
20. The Appellant had deposited a sum of ₹2,14,158/- at the time of filing of the Appeal. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The concerned party may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
21. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER March 09, 2026.
(Gurmeet S)