(O&M) v. Shyama Yadav & Anr.

Judgment

#1. The petitioner petitioner – OMAXE Ltd. assails order dated assails order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P- -1) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed by the National (NCDRC), Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) whereby an appeal filed n appeal filed by the petitioner challenging

30.11.2022 challenging order dated 30.11.2022 ) passed by (Annexure P-2) passed by ) passed by (Annexure P the State Consumer Disputes Redressal the State Consumer Disputes Redressal the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), has been dismissed Commission being time barred i.e. on account has been dismissed being time barred i.e. on account of delay of 300 days in filing the appeal. of delay of 300 days in filing the appeal.

#2. The dispute in nutshell, which led to respondent No.1 The dispute in Shyama Yadav espondent No.1 – Shyama Yadav instituting a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act instituting a espondent complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, is that respondent developed by Omaxe No.1 had booked a flat in a residential complex to be developed by Omaxe No.1 had booked a flat in a residential complex No.1 had booked a flat in a residential complex Ltd. (petitioner) espondent No.1 having paid the agreed amount, td. (petitioner), but despite respondent No.1 having paid the agreed amount espondent No.1 having paid the agreed amount ossession of the same within the the petitioner had failed to hand over possession of the same within the ossession of the same within the the petitioner had failed to hand over p stipulated time-frame. The SCDRC vide stipulated time .11.2022 vide its order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) directed the petitioner to refund (Annexure P directed the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.20,88,060 amount of Rs.20,88,060/- to respondent No.1 along with interest @ to respondent No.1 date of @ 6% per annum from the date of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.19 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CWP-6589-2026 (O&M) respective deposit apart from awarding another amount of deposits till realization apart from awarding another amount of apart from awarding another amount of ( 2 ) Rs.50,000/- - towards mental & physical agony and Rs.2 ,000 as litigation agony and Rs.25,000 as litigation expenses.

#3. , the Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-2), the Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30 l before the NCDRC, but since the same had been petitioner filed an appeal before the NCDRC, but since the same had been l before the NCDRC, but since the same had been petitioner filed an appea filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of 300 filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of 300 filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of 300 filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and there was a delay of 300 days, the same was dismissed being time-barred days, the same was dismissed being time vide impugned order dated barred vide impugned order dated

11.08.2025 (Annexure P-1). 11.08.2025

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Learned counsel for the pet copy of the itioner submitted that since the copy of the impugned order passed by the SCDRC i.e. order dated 30 impugned order passed by the SCDRC was never order dated 30.11.2022, was never conveyed to the petitioner although the SCDRC was obliged to convey the conveyed to the petitioner although the SCDRC was obliged to convey the conveyed to the petitioner although the SCDRC was obliged to convey the conveyed to the petitioner although the SCDRC was obliged to convey the or the reasons herefore, the petitioner was not aware of the said order or the reasons herefore, the petitioner was not aware of the same, therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the for deciding the matter against the petitioner assigned therein by the SCDRC for deciding the matter against the petitioner for deciding the matter against the petitioner assigned therein by the S was prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed and as such, was prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed was prevented from filing the appeal within the prescribed and as such

Learned counsel further submitted that in any case, the period of limitation. Learned counsel further submitted that in any case, the Learned counsel further submitted that in any case, the period of limitation. bing limitation ought to be interpreted liberally as the purpose of rules prescribing limitation ought to be interpreted liberally as the purpose of bing limitation ought to be interpreted liberally as the purpose of rules prescri limitation is not to defeat the ends of justice limitation is and rather a fair opportunity of justice and rather a fair opportunity remedies, particularly the should be afforded to the litigants to avail of remedies, particularly the should be afforded to the litigants to avail should be afforded to the litigants to avail submitted that the petitioner by not filing remedy of first appeal. It has been submitted that the petitioner by not filing submitted that the petitioner by not filing remedy of first appeal. It has been the appeal in time was not to gain anything the appeal in time was not as it was only on account of the anything, as it was only on account of the fact that he was not aware of the order passed by the SCDRC fact that he was not aware of the order that the delay passed by the SCDRC that the delay had occurred. It has further been submitted that the rules of limitation being had occurred. It has further been submitted that the rules had occurred. It has further been submitted that the rules rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and rules of procedure mistress, particularly of justice and not its mistress, particularly when the facts suggest that there would be miscarriage of justice in case the when the facts suggest that there would be miscarriage of justice in case when the facts suggest that there would be miscarriage of justice in case litigant is not afforded opportunity to avail of his right of appeal. litigant is not afforded Learned to avail of his right of appeal. Learned VIMAL KUMAR 2026.03.19 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (O&M) CWP-6589-2026 (O&M) forth his aforesaid submissions has placed counsel in order to hammer-forth his aforesaid submissions has placed forth his aforesaid submissions has placed counsel in order to hammer ( 3 ) reliance upon the following judgments: reliance upon the following judgments: (i) (ii) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 Rita Kesh Vs. Biswanath Singha, 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC Rita Kesh Vs. Biswanath Singha, 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 120 (iii) Hemlata Verma Vs. ICICI Prudent Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Hemlata Verma Vs. ICICI Prudent Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 2451) (iv) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another Vs. Katiji & Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another Vs. Katiji & others, (1987) 2 SCC 107

#5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through We have considered the aforesaid submissions and have also gone through udgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. udgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

#6. here is no denying the fact that in a fit case where the Courts in order to There is no denying the fact that in a fit case where the Courts in order to here is no denying the fact that in a fit case where the Courts in order to here is no denying the fact that in a fit case where the Courts in order to to be liberty in ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice would tend to be liberty in ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice would ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice would condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant condoning the delay, if some justifiable reasons are shown by the litigant seeking condonation of delay. However, t seeking condonation of delay. However, there is no broad yard-stick that delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it delay of how many days is to be treated as an inordinate delay inasmuch as it is the facts of each case which are required to be is the facts of each case which are required to be borne in mind while considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The considering as to whether the delay is sufficiently explained or not. The Courts are not expected to be liberal to the Courts are not expected to be liber very purpose of the extent that the very purpose of juncture, it is apposite to refer to a prescribing limitation is defeated. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to a juncture, it is apposite to refer to a prescribing limitation is defeated. judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao Vedabai Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, (2001) 9 SCC 106 observed that a distinction must be , (2001) 9 SCC 106, , wherein it was observed that a distinction must be observed that a distinction must be made where delay is inordinate and a case where made where delay is inordinate and of few days and case where the delay is of few days and that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the that in the case of an inordinate delay, the consideration of prejudice to the opposite side would be a relevant factor. opposite side would be a relevant fact

#7. In Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai,