State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Sarvpreet Kaur vs Sarabjeet Kaur on 18 November, 2025
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
I. A. No.1221 & 1223 of 2025
In/and
First Appeal No.723 of 2025
Date of Institution : 22.09.2025
Date of Reserve : 06.11.2025
Date of Decision : 18.11.2025
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 (Address as per Judgment : Sarvpreet
Kaur wife of late S.Gurindra Bir Singh resident of H.No.1747,
Phase 3B2, Sector 60, SAS Nagar, Mohali, now resident of Home
No.1070, First Floor, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh; Second address:
Dr.Sarvpreet Kaur, Associate Professor, Department of Physics,
Post Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector 11,
Chandigarh.
.....Appellants/Opposite parties No.2 & 6
Versus
1. Sarabjeet Kaur wife of Sardar Onkar Singh resident of House
No.9, Khalsa Avenue, Post Office Khalsa College, Amritsar, at
present residing at H.No. 7144 144 Street, SURREY, BC,
CANADA Postal Code: V3W 5S2.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. M/s Galaxy Developers, SCF No.99, Phase 3B2, S.A.S. Nagar,
Mohali (Punjab), through its Partners namely Gurindra Bir Singh
son of late S. Baldev Singh Pabla (since deceased) and S.
Baldev Singh Pabla (since deceased) through their legal heirs.
3. 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.
4. Ms.Jasnoor Kaur daughter of Late.S.Gurindra Bir Singh resident
of H.No.3525, Street No.10, Block A, SGM Nagar, NIT,
Faridabad -121001, (Address as per Judgment: Ms. Jasnoor
I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 2
In/and
First Appeal No 723 of 2025
Kaur (Minor) daughter of late Gurindra Bir Singh being legal heir
resident of late Gurindra Bir Singh through her mother being
natural guardian namely Dr. Sarvpreet Kaur (OP No 2) resident
of H.No.1747, Phase 3B2, Sector-60, SAS Nagar Mohali, now
resident of House No 1070, First Floor, Sector-36-C,
Chandigarh; Second address of OP No.2 and 3: Dr. Sarvpreet
Kaur, Associate Professor Department of Physics, Post
Graduate Government College for Girls, Sector-11,
Chandigarh.)
5. Galaxy Trust, SCF 23 Basement, Didar Nagar, Jhungiana
Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Trustee
i.e. Respondent no.6
6. Gurjeet Singh Son of S. Avtar Singh resident of House No.1525,
Block-E, Street No.10, S.G.M. Nagar, NIT Faridabad, Haryana;
7. Karamjeet Singh son of S. Avtar Singh resident of House
No.3525, Block-E, Street No. 10, S.G.M. Nagar, NIT Faridabad,
Haryana.
8. Jaspreet Singh Son of S. Sukhwinder Singh Saini resident of
Flat No. 105, Shubh CGHS-3, Sector-21-D, Faridabad,
Haryana.
.....Proforma Respondents/Opposite parties No.1, 4, 3, 5, 7 to 9
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
orders dated 22.02.2023 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 3 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.I.S.Luthra, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties No.2 & 6 against the same orders dated 22.02.2023 & 06.08.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, under the Consumer Protection Act (in short 'the Act'), was allowed and opposite parties were jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.21 lakhs to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt i.e. 14.02.2013 till payment is done. They were also jointly ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000/- a consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
M.A. No.1223 of 2025 (Delay)
2. This order will dispose of the application filed with F.A. No.723 of 2025 under Second Proviso to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for condonation of delay of 514 days in filing of the appeal.
3. The present application has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties No. 2 and 6 on the ground that an ex- parte judgment was passed against them on 22.02.2023, copies of I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 4 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 which were never received by the applicants. On 02.04.2024, the applicants were informed by their bankers that an attachment order dated 01.04.2024 had been received by the Bank in Execution Application No. 52 of 2024, issued by the District Commission, Mohali. On the same day, the applicants filed an application seeking review of the attachment order along with a prayer for stay of the execution proceedings. Subsequently, the applicants also moved an application dated 16.05.2024 for review of the order dated 06.09.2022, whereby they were proceeded against ex-parte, as well as the final order dated 22.02.2023.
4. The said review application was dismissed on 25.07.2024, and the certified copy of that order was received on 01.08.2024. Thereafter, the applicants preferred a revision petition before the State Commission challenging the order dated 25.07.2024. However, on 06.09.2024, the said revision petition was withdrawn with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy. Pursuant thereto, the applicants filed an appeal before this Commission along with an application under the second proviso to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking exemption from the condition of prior deposit of 50% of the amount awarded in the judgment dated 22.02.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 441 of 2022. However, the said appeal was neither registered nor numbered.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing CWP No. 28877 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2025. The present appeal has been filed I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 5 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 within the period of limitation from the date of disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. It is submitted that there is no delay in filing the present appeal after the decision of CWP No. 28877 of 2024, and that the applicants would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the present application is not allowed.
Facts of the Appeal
6. The complainant, 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.24.95 lakhs. However, the complainant was informed that if the entire amount was paid in advance, the flat would be allotted at a discounted price of Rs.21 lakhs. Opposite party No.1 assured delivery of possession within two years from the date of payment.
7. A letter of allotment was issued to the complainant, but opposite party No.1 failed to execute the buyer's agreement. Despite repeated visits by the complainant and her representative, the possession of the flat was not delivered and the matter was continuously delayed on one pretext or the other. Upon expiry of the committed period of two years, the complainant requested opposite party No.1 to refund the amount along with interest. Thereafter, opposite party No.1 offered an alternative 2 BHK flat on the ground floor in its project titled Palm-25, Amazon-3, Sector 123, New Sunny Enclave, Kharar, bearing No.1221-A, for the same price, assuring that in case of any delay beyond three years, compensation would be paid.
I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 6
In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025
8. It is further averred that initially, a 1 BHK apartment had been allotted vide allotment letter dated 02.03.2013, but possession was not delivered for more than three years. The complainant, being left with no other option, accepted the offer of opposite party No.2 for allotment of a 2 BHK flat at the same price in the aforesaid project. An endorsement to that effect was made on 26.12.2016 on the original allotment letter dated 02.03.2013. Subsequently, the complainant 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 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.2 to 4, but no satisfactory response was received.
9. Later, the complainant came to know that a trust titled Galaxy Trust had been constituted by Dr. 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. When the complainant approached the opposite parties for possession, she was informed that Flat No.1221-A had already been occupied by someone else, but no remedial action was taken by the opposite parties. Despite several approaches and requests made by the complainant for either delivery of possession or refund of the amount paid, no relief I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 7 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 was granted. Having no other alternative, the complainant filed the present 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 and to direct the opposite parties to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in the name of the complainant within a period of two months;
iii) to pay interest @12% with quarterly rests on the amount of Rs.21.00 lakhs to the complainant, for causing delay in delivery of possession w.e.f.
14.02.2013 till the date of actual delivery of possession of the Apartment
iv) to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs as compensation for causing financial loss as also the escalation prices to the complainant for causing mental and physical harassment and agony;
v) to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses. On in the alternative
(a) to refund Rs.21.00 lakh with interest @12% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of deposit i.e. 14.02.2013 till the date of its payment.
I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 8In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025
(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;
(c) To pay Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses.
10. Upon notice of the complaint, the opposite parties did not appear despite service, therefore, they were proceeded against ex- parte, vide order dated 06.09.2022.
11. The complainant filed her evidence in support of her contentions before the District Commission and after hearing the contentions of the complainant, the complaint was accepted, vide impugned order dated 22.02.2023.
12. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties No.2 & 6 for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.02.2023 and to allow their appeal along with an application for condoning the delay of 514 days.
13. We have heard the contentions of the appellant 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. Initially, the appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking directions to declare the second proviso to Sections 41, 51, and 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as unconstitutional. However, since this Commission had already entertained the appeal along with the application for waiver of pre- I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 9
In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 deposit, the Hon'ble High Court, in CWP No. 28877 of 2024, passed the following order:
"Harsimran Singh Sethi, J, (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed for issuance of direction to declare the second proviso to Sections 41.51 & 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as unconstitutional as well as for setting aside the orders dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P/3), 06.09.2022 (Annexure P/6), 22.02.2023 (Annexure P/10 and 25.07.2024 (Annexure P/12) impunged in the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal against the same impugned orders and an application has also been filed for waiving of the pre-deposit, which application is to be decided by the authorities concerned in accordance with law hence, the present petition be disposed of having not pressed any further with liberty to press the appeal along with application.
3. Ordered accordingly.
4. Keeping in view the fact that the appeal along with the application has already been filed by the petitioner as stated hereinbefore, the Appellate Authority is requested to decide the said application in accordance with law.
5. It is made clear that this Court is not making any observation on the merits of the case or the application filed by the petitioner.
6. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE September 04, 2025"I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 10
In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025
15. In pursuance of the said order, we deem it appropriate to first take up and decide the application bearing I.A. No.1221 of 2025.
I.A. No.1221 of 2025 (Exemption/Waiver)
16. This application has been filed by the appellants/applicants seeking exemption or waiver from depositing the prescribed 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 respondent/complainant has not paid even a single penny to them, as recorded in the impugned judgment, and therefore, the same cannot be executed against them. 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 22.02.2023.
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:"I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 11
In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025
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 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 I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 12 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 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.
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."
I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 13In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 In view of the above law laid down and as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, this application is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.
19. Now, we would address the application bearing I.A. No.1223 of 2025 for condoning the delay of 514 days in filing the appeal.
19. 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 514 days occurred in filing of the appeal. Even, in their application, they submitted that after receiving the certified copies of the orders of CC No.441 of 2022, they came to know about the passing of ex- parte proceedings order dated 06.09.2022 and judgment dated 22.02.2023, whereas, it has been clearly mentioned that opposite parties No.2,3,4 and 6 refused to accept the notices. The order dated 06.09.2022 is reproduced hereunder:
"Summons to OP Nos.2,3,4 and 6 were sent through office peon but their officials have refused to accept the summons. Refusal is a valid service. It is writ large on the file that OP Nos.2,3,4 and 6 are aware of present proceedings before this Commission and are duly served. It appears that OP Nos.2,3,4 and 6 are not interested to contest the complaint of the complainant. As such OP Nos.2,3,4 and 6 are proceeded against ex-parte.
Registered notices along with AD were sent to effect the service of OP Nos.7,8 and 9 on 28.07.2022 which have not been received back served or unserved. Already 30 days time has elapsed. It is presumed that notices have been duly served upon OP Nos.7,8 and 9. Case called several times during the day. None appeared on behalf of OP Nos.7,8 and I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 14 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025
9. Therefore, OP Nos.7,8 and 9 are proceeded against ex- parte.
As per office report, registered post containing summons of OP Nos.1 received back with the report "address changed and qua OP No.5 'insufficient address. Since OP No.1 is being sued through OP Nos.2 to 4, being legal heirs and as such it is deemed that the same stands duly served. OP No.5 is also sued through OP Nos. 6 to 9, being trustee and such it is deemed that OP No.5 stands duly served. Case called several times during the day. None appeared on behalf of OP Nos.1 to 5. It appears that OP Nos.1 and 5 are interested to contest the claim of the complainant. As such, Ops No.1 and 5 are proceeded against ex-parte."
The above order unequivocally establishes that the opposite parties, though duly served, deliberately chose not to appear before the District Commission.
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 I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 15 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 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 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 I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 16 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 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 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 I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 17 In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 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, the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has taken a lame excuse by relying on the other applications filed by the appellants/applicants, despite the fact that such applications are not maintainable before the District Commission once the order has been passed. He is further attempting to take advantage of the Civil Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court, which by itself cannot be considered a valid ground for condoning such an inordinate delay. 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 514 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.
I.A. Nos. 1221 & 1223 of 2025 18
In/and First Appeal No 723 of 2025 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.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER November 18th,2025 parmod