State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Gurdeep Singh Ahluwalia S/O. Late ... vs Shri Satish Kumar Jindal on 22 December, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/731/2024
(Against the Order dated 9th March 2023 in Complaint CC/16/2022 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab)
WITH
NC/IA/13272/2024 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NC/IA/13274/2024 (EXCEMPTION OF FILE TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS)
NC/IA/13273/2024 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)
MR. GURDEEP SINGH AHLUWALIA S/o. LATE SH. BUDH RAM
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. FLAT NO.803, BLOCK G-3, MAYA GARDEN CITY, ZIRAKPUR,
DISTT. SAS NAGAR, MOHALI, PUNJAB-140603AMRITSAR,PUNJAB.
MRS. NISHA WALIA W/O. GURDEEP SINGH AHLUWALIA
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. FLAT NO.803, BLOCK G-3, MAYA GARDEN CITY, ZIRAKPUR,
DISTT. SAS NAGAR, MOHALI, PUNJAB-140603
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
SHRI SATISH KUMAR JINDAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM PARTNER OF M/S BARNALA BUILDERS
AND PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, NOW OPPOSITE MAC DONALDS, CHANDIGARH-AMBALA
ROAD, C/O MAYA GARDEN MAGNESIA, ZIRAKPUR SAS NAGAR, MOHALI-140603,
PUNJABSOUTH,DELHI.
MR. MADAN KUMAR JINDAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - DIRECTOR CUM PARTNER M/S BARNALA BUILDERS AND
PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, NOW OPPOSITE MACDONALDS, CHANDIGARH- AMBALA
ROAD, C/O MAYA GARDEN MAGNESIA, ZIRAKPUR, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI-140603, PUNJAB
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
MR. ARIF QURESHI, ADV
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MS. ALANKRITA SINHA, ADV (VC)
DATED: 22/12/2025
ORDER
1. Heard counsel for both sides.
2. The FA has been filed with a delay of 18 days as per the calculations made by the Registry. The counsel for the respondents submits that the actual delay in filing the appeal is 491 days, if counted from the date of first filing, which was found defective. Even an application seeking condonation of such delay of 491 days has been filed. The appellants took a long time in rectifying the defects. The delay in filing the second appeal is condoned after hearing both sides, and the case is taken up on merits.
3. The challenge is to the order dated 09.03.2023 of the State Commission, vide which the complaint filed by the appellants herein was dismissed on account of limitation, having been filed with a delay of 776 days. The counsel for the appellants contends that there was no delay. However, the counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the application for seeking condonation of delay filed before the state Commission vide MA/788/2022, in which the appellants themselves have stated the delay as 776 days. In the present case, the possession of the unit has already been taken and sale deed has been signed. The issue pertained to the refund of some excess amount as claimed by the appellants herein (Rs.7.93 lacs). When specifically asked as to when the cause of action for proceeding with the refund of excess amount arose, the counsel for the appellants drew our attention to their email communication dated 26.02.2017 at page 236 of the paper book. This email communication is reproduced below:
"MOST IMPORTANT PLEASE : Kind Attention: Mr Satish Kumar Jindal, Madan Lal Jindal, Amit Kumar Mittal and others Kindly refer to my previous mails, letters and personal requests on visits to settle my all dues refundable to me being excess paid and also refund the Service Tax paid to you against my flat along with maintenance charges along the applicable Interest on the total amount till date, since only Rs 50000/- is adjusted in the payable due account. You have not provided the completion certificate and details of Service tax as requested many times.
Service tax was paid to you vide receipt no. 12349 and 12800 on dates 27.5.15 and 14.7.15 respectively amounting to total 136601/- for which receipts of deposits are not received till date, whereas Maintenance charges were paid to you vide receipt number 12800 dated 14.7.15 amounting to Rs. 183348/-
You are requested to settle it on priority and a meeting with your good self shall be highly appreciated."
4. A bare perusal of this communication shows that this was not the first communication seeking refund, it refers to certain previous mails, letters and personnel requests to settle the dues refundable to the appellants herein, being excess paid. The appellants herein have chosen to withhold all such previous communications, mails/ letters from this Commission. Even if counted from this date, the limitation expired on 26.02.2019, i.e. before the onset of the COVID period. The complaint before the State Commission was filed on 14.02.2022 only.
5. The appellants have challenged the orders of the State Commission on following grounds:
(i) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the respondents have not obtained the completion certificate and occupancy certificate from the concerned municipal authorities till date.
(ii) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the respondents have received excess payment of Rs. 6,63,000/- from the complainants, which has neither been denied nor refunded till date.
(iii) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the cause of action, if any, is recurring and continuous in nature, as the refund has not been denied and the completion and occupancy certificates have not been obtained till date.
(iv) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the actual cause of action for refund of Rs.6,63,000/- arose on 20.03.2018, when the sale deed was registered under protest, expressly reserving the complainants' right to recover the excess amount paid.
(v) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the appellants paid a total amount of Rs. 51,33,752/-, comprising Rs. 44,70,913/- towards consideration and Rs. 7,63,000/- in cash towards maintenance, service tax, registration, etc., as demanded by the respondents. The said payments were duly admitted by the respondents in their letters, copies whereof were filed with the complaint.
(vi) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the appellants paid a total amount of Rs. 51,33,752/-, comprising Rs. 44,70,913/- towards consideration and Rs. 7,63,000/- in cash towards maintenance, service tax, registration, etc., as demanded by the respondents. The said payments were duly admitted by the respondents in their letters, copies whereof were filed with the complaint.
6. The main question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the State Commission was justified in declining condonation of delay in filing the Appeal and dismiss it as barred by limitation. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, other relevant records and contentions of the Petitioner herein. We have also considered the reasons for delay as contained in the condonation of delay application filed by the petitioner herein before the State Commission in the light of observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Commission in various cases.
7. In Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Respresentative and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 531, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed 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 lengths of delay being immaterial, each case for condonation of delay based on the existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts and that a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below. In Basawaraj and Another. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when a case is filed beyond the limitation period, the applicant must demonstrate "sufficient cause," meaning an adequate and enough reason for not approaching the court within the prescribed time. If the party is found to be negligent, lacking bona fides, or not acting diligently, there is no justified ground for condoning the delay. Courts are not justified in condoning such delays by imposing any conditions and must adhere to the established parameters for condonation of delay. Condoning delay without sufficient cause and proper justification would violate statutory provisions and show disregard for legislative intent. In Esha Bhattcharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649], the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed concern over the growing tendency to perceive delay as a trivial matter and to exhibit a lackadaisical attitude towards it, which needs to be addressed within the confines of legal parameters. In Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 10 SCC 765, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the law of limitation must be applied rigorously as prescribed by statute, even if it causes hardship to a particular party. The court cannot extend the limitation period on equitable grounds. In H. Dohil Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 680 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on sound public policy, and therefore, applications for condonation of delay should be strictly construed in the absence of genuine reasons. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. LAO, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 observed that the law of limitation is rooted in the public policy of concluding litigation by forfeiting the remedy rather than the right itself, emphasizing that rights or remedies not exercised within a specified time should cease to exist. In State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, the Supreme Court observed that the notion that merit in a case justifies disregarding a period of delay is preposterous. Regardless of a case's merit, the limitation period can bar its consideration, potentially excluding even strong cases. However, this does not negate the court's jurisdiction to condone delay in appropriate circumstances. In Bappanand Narshimman Annu Vs. Hirmanidevi G.S. Gupta & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2605, the National Commission observed that in accordance with the broad principles established by numerous decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the term 'sufficient cause' cannot be interpreted liberally when negligence, inaction, or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party seeking such discretion. Emphasizing the importance of applying the statutory period of limitation rigorously, the Commission observed that unlimited leniency in time limits fosters uncertainty.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Manjunath Anandappa (Supra), stated that appellate courts generally should not intervene with the discretion exercised by lower courts. This principle is affirmed in U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Sunder Bros (AIR 1967 SC 249), where it is emphasized that appellate courts should be hesitant to interfere with the exercise of discretion by trial courts. The appellate court should not replace its own discretion for that of the trial judge unless the trial court has acted unreasonably, capriciously, or ignored relevant facts. Additionally, in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, it is highlighted that appellate courts should intervene only when the lower court's order is clearly wrong, not just when it is not right.
9. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission and other relevant records. The State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order, and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings. We are in agreement with the findings of the State Commission that the complaint has been filed with a huge delay. The contentions of the appellant herein that there is no delay are without any basis. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State Commission in dismissing the complaint on account of limitation. Hence, the order of the State Commission is upheld. Accordingly, FA/731/2024 is dismissed.
10. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent(s), on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.
11. Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
..................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN MEMBER