Delay of 1132 Days Can't Be Excused by Casual Excuses: Bombay High Court Dismisses Builder’s Plea, Upholds NCDRC Order in Consumer Dispute

Developer played the waiting game to stall execution proceedings—Consumer rights can't be sacrificed at the altar of casual litigation - In a powerful endorsement of timely justice for homebuyers, the Bombay High Court refused to interfere with the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which had dismissed an appeal by a developer citing inordinate delay of 1132 days in filing it.
The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna was unambiguous in its view that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any bona fide justification for the delay, holding that: “The petitioner did not act diligently, nor with proper care and caution as the law would require. The law of limitation cannot be rendered nugatory by invoking vague, unsubstantiated excuses.”
“Consumer Protection Law Is a Welfare Legislation—Builders Cannot Exploit Legal Process to Evade Redress”
The dispute arose when Pushpa Mate, an individual homebuyer, filed a complaint in 2016 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging delay in possession and deficiency in service against Samarth Constructions, which had failed to deliver her apartment in Nashik within the promised 24 months.
The State Consumer Commission, in July 2018, partly allowed her complaint, ordering the builder to refund ₹11,00,000 with 9% interest, along with ₹1,00,000 as compensation and ₹20,000 litigation costs.
However, instead of filing a timely appeal, the builder approached the NCDRC more than three years later, filing a delayed appeal in September 2021, along with a condonation of delay application blaming Covid-19, health issues, and alleged settlement talks.
The High Court was unimpressed: “Except for bald allegations, no material was placed on record to even remotely substantiate the accusations. The reasons are not sufficient and reflect a calculated wait-and-watch approach, adopted only to thwart execution.”
“Limitation Laws Apply in Full Force—No Equity Can Excuse Apathy”
The Court firmly reiterated that limitation statutes must be applied with rigor, especially in consumer matters where expeditious adjudication is the cornerstone. Citing multiple Supreme Court rulings, including Basawaraj v. Special LAO and Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, the bench held: “The discretion for condonation of delay under the Consumer Protection Act is circumscribed by statutory language. There must be real, sufficient, and compelling cause—none of which is present in this case.”
It further noted that: “Admittedly, the petitioners and the respondent were in settlement talks. The failure of such talks prompted the petitioners to file proceedings only when execution was initiated—a transparent attempt to stall justice.”
“Builders Cannot Take Shelter Behind Health Excuses and Pandemic to Evade Consumer Rights”
The Court observed that the reasons offered by the petitioners—partner health problems, firm reconstitution, Covid restrictions, and poor legal advice—were neither substantiated nor legally acceptable as a justification for a delay exceeding three years.
“The petitioners fell short of fulfilling the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court for invoking equitable writ jurisdiction. The plea is misconceived and wholly devoid of merit.”
“Consumer Law Is Meant to Protect the Untrained, Unwary Buyer—Courts Must Guard Against Tactical Delays”
The Court emphasized the social welfare intent behind the Consumer Protection Act and reminded developers and litigants alike: “A technical plea should not be used to defeat the intent of the law. The respondent, a flat purchaser, should not be dragged into prolonged litigation because of the developer’s own indolence.”
Quoting from Alpha G 184 Owners Assn. v. Magnum Intl., the Court underscored that: “Any technical approach construing the statute against consumers would go against the very objective behind the enactment.”

Date of Decision:04 April 2025