State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. vs Long Life Agro Pvt. Lyd on 20 November, 2025
FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:20.09.2025
(Online)
29.10.2025
(Physically)
Date of hearing : 13.11.2025
Date of Decision : 20.11.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. 518/2025
IN THE MATTER OF
TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
THROUGH MR. PARAS ARORA
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
11, TOLSTOY ROAD, ATUL GROVE ROAD
VANDANA BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110001
(Through M/S SKV Associates
Email: [email protected]
Mob:9213431484)
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD.
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
382, 1ST FLOOR, DEEPALI, PITAMPURA
DELHI-110088
....NON-APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Present: Mr. Dhruv Sharma, counsel for the appellant (Mobile No.
7088701166).
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 20.09.2025 (online) and 29.10.2025 (physically) challenging the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Complaint Case DISMISSED Page 1 of 10 FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025 No.287/2024 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI (New Delhi District) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.2497/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Paras Arora, Authorized Representative of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
3. I have given considerable thought to the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record.
4. The application has been preferred under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.287/2024.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 5 of the application reads as under:
"5. Without prejudice to the aforementioned submissions, the Appellant is submitting the following facts for consideration of this Hon'ble Commission: -
(a) That the present Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Ld. District Commission As per law, the limitation period for filing the Appeal was 45 days, which expired on 14.06.2025. The present Appeal has been e-filed on 20.09.2025, resulting in a delay of 98 days in filing.
(b) That the copy of the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 was received by the applicant company on 26.05.2025, and the same was immediately forwarded to the counsel's office for its perusal and to obtain necessary instructions regarding filing of the Appeal.
The Counsel for the applicant after going through the impugned order, reverted on 30.06.2025 via telephonic conversation with proposed strategy and sought necessary instructions from the applicant company. The DISMISSED Page 2 of 10 FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025 same along with documents pertaining to filing of the appeal was received around 05.06.2025.
(c) However, during this time, the office of the present counsel was undergoing shifting due to ongoing construction/renovation works. In this process, the entire record room was shifted, and some files, including the file pertaining to the present matter, were inadvertently misplaced. Certain documents earlier filed before the District Court were also not traceable, which caused further difficulty in preparing the Appeal.
(d) It is further submitted that the counsel previously engaged in the said matter had already left the office, and unfortunately, he did not apprise the newly appointed counsel about the pendency of this particular case. Owing to this lack of communication and non- availability of the relevant file, the Appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time period.
(e) During regular perusal and reorganization of the files in the month of August 2025, the missing file was traced. It was only then that it came to the knowledge of the present counsel that the Appeal in this matter had not been filed. Immediately thereafter, the Applicant via telephonic conversation, informed and fresh instructions were sought, which were duly received by the end of August 2025
(f) After receiving the said instructions and tracing the necessary documents, the counsel prepared the Appeal papers in the first week of September 2025. Upon obtaining final approvals from the Applicant Company, the Appeal was promptly filed e-filed on 20.09.2025 without any further delay
(g) The delay of 98 days is thus neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to the unavoidable circumstances narrated hereinabove.
(h) It is humbly submitted that grave and irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the Applicant in case DISMISSED Page 3 of 10 FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025 the present Application is not allowed and the delay in filing of the accompanying Appeal is not condoned."
6. To adjudicate this issue, I deem it appropriate to refer to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which provides as under:-
41. "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:
Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
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 percent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory position reflects that the appeal against an impugned order should be preferred within a period of forty five days from the date of such order. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.04.2025 and the present appeal was filed on 20.09.2025 (online) and 29.10.2025 (physically) i.e. after a delay of 98 days and 137 days respectively.
8. In order to condone the delay, the appellant has to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after the stipulated period. The term 'sufficient cause' has been explained by the Apex Court in Basawaraj and Ors.
DISMISSED Page 4 of 10FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025 vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC
746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
"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", 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 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 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."
9. I also deem it appropriate to refer to Anil Kumar Sharma vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in IV(2015)CPJ453(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC held as under:-
"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 Aggarwal v. 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 DISMISSED Page 5 of 10 FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025 appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
10. I further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 decided on 25.02.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held 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 PopatBahiruGoverdhane 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.
11. I deem it appropriate to refer to the broad principles pertaining to the laws of limitation as laid down in the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 titled as "H. GURUSWAMY & ORS. Vs. A. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED By LRS." decided on 08.01.2025, wherein the by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the DISMISSED Page 6 of 10 FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025 respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time."
12. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;
"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."DISMISSED Page 7 of 10
FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025
13. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble National Commission, 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 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.
14. Reverting to the material available before us, I find that the impugned order was passed on 30.04.2025 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 14.06.2025. However, the reasons stated for the delay are that upon receipt of copy of impugned order on 26.05.2025, the same was immediately forwarded to the counsel for perusal and instructions regarding filing the appeal; after examining the order, the counsel reverted on 30.06.2025 with a proposed strategy and requested further inputs, which, along with the required documents, were provided around 05.06.2025; during this period, the counsel's office was being shifted due to renovation, resulting in temporary disorganization; the record room was moved, and several files, including the present one, were inadvertently misplaced; certain documents earlier filed before the District Court were also untraceable, causing additional delays; compounding the situation, the previously engaged counsel had left the office without informing the newly appointed counsel about the pending matter; consequently, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period; in August 2025, the missing file resurfaced during file reorganization and fresh instructions were immediately obtained; the appeal was thereafter prepared in early September 2025, and upon final approval, it was duly e-filed on 20.09.2025.
DISMISSED Page 8 of 10FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025
15. It is worth noting that it is an admitted case of appellant that it received the copy of the impugned order on 26.05.2025, in these circumstances, the appellant was expected to file the appeal within the limitation period i.e. by 10.07.2025 but the appeal had been filed on 20.09.2025 (online) and on 29.10.2025 (physically). Hence, there is delay of 72 days and 111 days respectively in filing the appeal.
16. It is noteworthy that the appellant has also not mentioned the period during which the office of counsel was shifted due to construction/renovation works. Further, the appellant has not mentioned as to what steps were taken to trace out the case file. The appellant has also not disclosed the name of person by whom the case file got misplaced and by whom and when traced out.
17. It is also worth mentioning that the appellant has preferred not to mention the name as well as other details of the erstwhile counsel who left the office of the appellant. Further, no specific date has been mentioned in the application as to when erstwhile counsel left the office of the appellant.
18. It is significant to note that it is the duty of the appellant to be aware of statutory period of filing the appeal.
19. The applicant has abused the process of law and filed this appeal after immense delay without any reasonable ground.
20. As per the averments made in the application as well as the record, I am of the considered view that no cogent reason has been explained by the appellant to show the delay in filing the appeal.
21. Having regard to the statutory position discussed in para supra and the facts of the case, the applicant failed to show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the DISMISSED Page 9 of 10 FA/518/2025 TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. LONG LIFE AGRO PVT. LTD. DOD: 20.11.2025 present appeal. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay cannot be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed on the above grounds.
22. Consequently, the present appeal filed beyond the statutory period also stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
23. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties as well as forwarded to the corresponding E-mail address available on the record.
24. File be consigned to record room.
BIMLA KUMARI MEMBER (FEMALE) Pronounced on 20.11.2025.
DISMISSED Page 10 of 10