NCDRC Refuses To Condon 179-Day Delay In Filing Appeal, Says Appellant Failed To Show Sufficient Cause
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising AVM J. Rajendra (Retd.), Presiding Member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, refused to condone a delay of 179 days in filing an appeal by a commercial unit allottee against a builder, holding that the reasons cited, including age, financial hardship, legal consultations and collection of documents, did not constitute “sufficient cause” under law. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and rejected the appeal as barred by limitation.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Veeresh Berry, had booked commercial units with M/s Citi Center Developers at Zirakpur, Punjab. Alleging non-delivery of possession of the units despite substantial payments and raising grievances regarding contractual penalties, reduction of undivided land share, unilateral alterations in the project layout and GST demands, he approached the Chandigarh State Consumer Commission seeking relief against the developer.
The State Commission partly allowed his complaint. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the complainant sought to challenge it before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 179 days. Seeking condonation of delay, the complainant contended that he was a 68-year-old retired Indian Oil Corporation officer facing financial hardship due to non-delivery of possession since 2016 and that considerable time was consumed in obtaining legal advice, collecting voluminous records and examining complex issues relating to contractual penalties, RERA provisions and other disputes arising from the project.
Observation and Decision
The Commission observed that the appeal had been filed with a delay of 179 days beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. Referring to the principles laid down in Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and other precedents, it reiterated that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and that an applicant must establish a bona fide and sufficient cause for the delay.
The Commission found that the reasons advanced by the appellant, including his age, financial hardship, consultations with lawyers, collection of documents and examination of legal issues, were routine in nature and insufficient to justify such a prolonged delay. It observed that the appellant had failed to explain the delay with the diligence required under law and had not demonstrated any sufficient cause warranting exercise of the Commission's discretionary power.
Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, the Commission further noted that special limitation periods prescribed under consumer law are intended to ensure expeditious adjudication of disputes and that entertaining highly belated appeals would defeat that objective.
Accordingly, holding that the appellant had failed to establish sufficient cause for the 179-day delay, the Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the first appeal as barred by limitation
Case Title: Veeresh Berry v. M/s Citi Center Developers & Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 197 of 2026