Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a construction firm and its partners, launched a real estate project and received an investment of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the respondent, a flat purchaser, in 2010–2011. The project was not completed within the estimated 24 months. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission, which on 27 July 2018 directed the petitioners to refund Rs. 11,00,000/- with 9% interest, along with compensation and costs. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission along with an application for condonation of 1132 days’ delay, citing the COVID-19 pandemic, change in partnership constitution, health issues, and ongoing settlement talks. The National Commission dismissed the appeal on 19 August 2024, holding that the delay was not sufficiently explained. The petitioners then approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the National Commission’s order and to remand the complaint to the State Commission for fresh consideration with an opportunity to file a written statement. The High Court examined the National Commission’s order and found it to be a reasoned decision that meticulously considered the condonation application. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity or grave injustice warranting interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It emphasized that a party seeking condonation of delay must explain each day of delay, and vague references to the pandemic, partnership changes, health problems, and settlement discussions did not constitute sufficient cause for a delay of over three years. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the National Commission’s decision.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection – Condonation of Delay – Section 23 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – National Commission dismissed appeal for failure to explain day-to-day delay of 1132 days – Held that even in the presence of COVID-19 pandemic, change in partnership firm, and health issues, the applicant must provide a plausible explanation for the entire period; mere broad averments insufficient – Order upheld (Paras 14-15).
B) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 of Constitution of India – High Court refused to interfere with National Commission’s discretionary order on limitation – Held that unless the order is perverse or causes grave injustice, extraordinary jurisdiction will not be exercised; no perversity found in reasoned order (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without addressing the merits of the consumer complaint.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the National Commission had passed a reasoned order and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity or grave injustice. The National Commission’s finding that the condonation application did not explain each day’s delay was upheld. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not interfered with.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not exercised unless perversity or grave injustice shown
- condonation of delay requires explanation of each day's delay
- mere reference to COVID-19 or partnership changes insufficient to condone 1132-day delay.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 142
Writ Petition No. 18556 of 2024
G.S. Kulkarni, Advait M. Sethna
Citation not available, 2025:BHC-AS:15723-DB
Mr. Pranav Nair, Ms. Akshata Katara i/b Asahi Legal
Samarth Constructions through its Partner Anita Balasaheb Pokle and Vrushali Pramod Amrutkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order of the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (NCDRC) dismissing appeal on ground of limitation.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of NCDRC order dated 19/08/2024 in First Appeal No. 771 of 2021 and remand of complaint No. 516 of 2016 to State Commission for fresh consideration with opportunity to file written statement.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the NCDRC’s dismissal of first appeal for failure to sufficiently explain 1132-day delay in filing the appeal.
Previous Decisions
State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission order dated 27 July 2018 in Complaint No. 516 of 2016 directing refund with interest and compensation; National Commission order dated 19 August 2024 in First Appeal No. 771 of 2021 dismissing the appeal as time-barred.
Issues
Whether the National Commission erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the merits of the consumer complaint.
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the National Commission’s discretionary order.
Submissions/Arguments
National Commission’s order is perverse and lacks application of mind; it failed to consider that the petitioner is a consumer within the meaning of the Act.
The respondent fabricated receipts and played fraud, thus abused the legal process.
Delay of 1132 days was attributable to COVID-19 pandemic, change in partnership firm (dissolution deed dated 4 February 2016), health issues of partners, and ongoing settlement talks.
Immediately after receiving the State Commission’s order, reasonable steps were taken but circumstances beyond control prevented timely filing.
Ratio Decidendi
A condonation of delay application must explain each day’s delay with sufficient cause; mere reference to COVID-19, change in partnership, health issues, or settlement talks without day‑to‑day details is inadequate. An order of the National Commission dismissing an appeal as time‑barred is not perverse if based on a reasoned evaluation of the condonation application. High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and will not be exercised merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted only when the order is shown to be perverse or causes grave injustice.
Judgment Excerpts
The National Commission has rendered a reasoned judgment recounting the facts, under the canopy of submissions of parties, duly, supported by law.
It is true that the National Commission has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on the ground of failure of the petitioners to make out a case for condonation of delay of 1132 days in filing its appeal before National Commission. However, the National Commission has meticulously...
Procedural History
Respondent filed consumer complaint before State Commission; State Commission allowed complaint on 27 July 2018; Petitioners filed appeal before National Commission with condonation of delay application; National Commission dismissed appeal on 19 August 2024; Petitioners filed writ petition before Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Section 12, Section 23
- Constitution of India: Article 226
