State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd Through Its ... vs Chonghoikim Thomsong on 18 July, 2025
FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution:22.02.2025
Date of hearing : 17.07.2025
Date of Decision : 18.07.2025
FIRST APPEAL NO. 78/2025
IN THE MATTER OF
AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
OFFICE AT: PLOT NO. 59 & 60, SECOND FLOOR
KHURANA BUILDING, NEELAM BATA ROAD
OPPOSITE ICICI BANK, NIT
FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001
(Through Ms. Lavika Gupta &
Ms. Nitika Bakshi, Advocaets
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Mob.9971170800
9711067323)
...APPLICANT/APPELLANT
VERSUS
MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG
R/O 459/305, 3RD FLOOR
BHOLI NAGAR, MASJID MOTH
SOUTH EXTENSION-II, SOUTH DELHI
DELHI-110049
....NON-APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Ms. Lavika Gupta, counsel for the appellant appeared
through VC.
None for the respondent.
PER: HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1.The present appeal has been filed on 22.02.2025 challenging the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Complaint Case DISMISSED Page 1 of 8 FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025 No.367/2023 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- II (South District), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel Mehrauli) New Delhi (South- I) whereby the appellant/opposite party was proceeded ex-parte.
2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.712/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed vide diary no. 4172 dated 25.03.2025. Affidavit of Mr. Jitender, Authorized Representative of the appellant has been filed along with this application.
3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.
4. The application has been moved without mentioning any provision of law. However, it is being considered under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.367/2023.
5. Application for condonation of delay has been filed on various grounds. Para No. 3 to 6 of the application read as under:
"3. That this inadvertent delay was caused as it is hereby stated that the Appellant have not received the notice of the case filed before the District Forum. In the end of December the Appellant got the knowledge through portal namely Cubic Tree Case Track about the case filed by the OP.
4. That it is hereby stated that in the month of January as the Court was reopened after holidays the Appellant inspected the file and applied for the certified copy of the above noted matter. After that the Appellant has filed the Appeal before the 0Hon'ble Court on 15.02.2025. The non-appearance before the Hon'ble Court was not deliberate.
5. That in the end of December the Appellant got the knowledge of the impugned order and the Appeal has been filed on 15.02.2025 which is well within the limitation period since the Appellant got the knowledge of the above captioned matter.DISMISSED Page 2 of 8
FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025
6. That due to these unexpected circumstances there has been a delay of 261 days in filing the captioned matter."
6. To adjudicate this issue, we 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 30.05.2024 and the present appeal was filed on 22.02.2025 i.e. after a delay of 223 days.
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. vs. The Spl.
Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2014 SC 746. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:-
DISMISSED Page 3 of 8FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025 "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. We 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 appeals and revisions, which are highly belated are entertained."
10. We further deem it appropriate to refer to Lingeswaran Etc. Versus Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054- DISMISSED Page 4 of 8 FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025 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. We 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 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 DISMISSED Page 5 of 8 FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025 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."
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 DISMISSED Page 6 of 8 FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025 furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay.
14. Reverting to the material available before us, we find that the impugned order was passed on 30.05.2024 and the period of limitation starts from the date of order which had expired on 14.07.2024. However, the reasons stated for the delay are that the appellant had not received any notice of the complaint case filed before the District Commission; it was only at the end of December when the appellant became aware of the matter through the Cubic Tree Case Track portal; upon reopening of the Court in January, the appellant inspected the file and applied for a certified copy of the impugned order; and thereafter the present appeal has been filed on 15.02.2025.
15. It has been averred in para 3 of the application that the appellant had not received the notice of the complaint case filed before the District Commission. On the other hand, as per order dated 28.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 367/2023 by the District Commission uploaded on the official website, the notice was issued to the appellant/opposite party which was delivered on 22.03.2024. Further, both addresses of the appellant/opposite party mentioned in the appeal as well as complaint are same. Hence, the averment made in para 3 cannot help the appellant to condone the delay.
16. The order dated 28.03.2024 is reproduced as under:
"Present:Adv. Kishita Luthra for complainant .....for the Complainant None for OP .....for Opp. Party Dated : 28 Mar 2024 Order Notice was issued to OP which was delivered on 22.03.2024, however none has appeared despite second call.
List on 30.05.2024 for OP's reply, if any."
17. It is pertinent to mention here that the there was no winter vacations in the month of December, 2024 and the District Commission was DISMISSED Page 7 of 8 FA/78/2025 AADHAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. MS. CHONGHOIKIM THOMSONG DOD: 18.07.2025 functioning properly in that month. The Registry of this Commission was also fully functional.
18. It is the duty of the appellant to be aware of his case(s) pending before any Court/Commission/Tribunal and to be vigilant as well as to keep track of his case(s) and 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, we are 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 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.
JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT) PINKI MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced on 18.07.2025.
DISMISSED Page 8 of 8