IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 ABHISHEK PARTAP SINGH NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P-2) Commission, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) whereby his appeal impugning the order State Consumer Disputes referred to as ‘the State Commission’) has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the National Commission had been sufficiently explained and, therefore, it ought to be condoned. He also submits that the petitioner has an excellent case on merits and and the National Co 3. Heard. 4. The petitioner is stated to have purchased a second hand Audi A car from respondent petitioner had preferred IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6008-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 13.05.2025 ABHISHEK PARTAP SINGH Versus NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Jatin Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the order 2) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) whereby his appeal impugning the order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission referred to as ‘the State Commission’) has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal before the National Commission had been sufficiently therefore, it ought to be condoned. He also submits that the petitioner has an excellent case on merits and, therefore, the delay be condoned and the National Commission be directed to decide the case on merits. Heard. The petitioner is stated to have purchased a second hand Audi A car from respondents No.2 and 3 on 24.10.2022 for a sum of Rs.10,20,000/ petitioner had preferred a consumer complaint before the State Commission on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 13.05.2025 … Petitioner (s) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA , Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.01.2025 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) whereby his dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal before the National Commission had been sufficiently therefore, it ought to be condoned. He also submits that the therefore, the delay be condoned mmission be directed to decide the case on merits. The petitioner is stated to have purchased a second hand Audi A-6 on 24.10.2022 for a sum of Rs.10,20,000/-. The consumer complaint before the State Commission on NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND 08.01.2025 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the National Commission’) whereby his the (hereinafter 4 days in filing the appeal before the National Commission had been sufficiently therefore, it ought to be condoned. He also submits that the therefore, the delay be condoned 6 . The consumer complaint before the State Commission on SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6008-2025 the ground that the car was defective and the petitioner had incurred considerable expenses on its repair. The c petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission on the delivery letter dated 24.10.2022 the petitioner/complainant. order of State Commission application for condonation of delay of 164 days. condonation of delay, it has been stated that the applicant trying to settle the issue stated that the applicant had to engage a new counsel and with great difficulty, he was able to find a counsel in Delhi who could take up his case. The documents and records were also misplaced. The relevant extract of the application is reproduced hereunder: 2025 2 the ground that the car was defective and the petitioner had incurred considerable expenses on its repair. The consumer c petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission on the delivery letter dated 24.10.2022 (Annexure P the petitioner/complainant. The petitioner had preferred an appeal order of State Commission before the National Commission along with an application for condonation of delay of 164 days. condonation of delay, it has been stated that the applicant to settle the issue earlier, but the efforts co stated that the applicant had to engage a new counsel and with great difficulty, he was able to find a counsel in Delhi who could take up his case. The documents and records were also misplaced. The relevant extract of the pplication is reproduced hereunder: “Xxxxx 3. That the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received only in the last week of June. 4. That the applicant unfortunately lost touch with the old counsel as the counel was not keeping well for a substantial period of time, hence legal advice could not be rendered to the applicant regarding the due course of action. 5. That after the impugned judgment was passed, the applicant was also trying to explore amicable means of settling the issue but the efforts could not fructify. 6. That the applicant had to engage a new counsel and it is with great difficulty that the applicant was able to find lawyer in Delhi who could take up his case. Some documents and records were also misplaced due to passage of a substantial period of time and some efforts were made to extract the same. Xxxxx” the ground that the car was defective and the petitioner had incurred onsumer complaint preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission on 14.05.2024 by relying on (Annexure P-4) which had been signed by The petitioner had preferred an appeal impugning the before the National Commission along with an application for condonation of delay of 164 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the applicant (petitioner herein) was but the efforts could not fructified. It was also stated that the applicant had to engage a new counsel and with great difficulty, he was able to find a counsel in Delhi who could take up his case. The documents and records were also misplaced. The relevant extract of the 3. That the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received only in the last week of June. 4. That the applicant unfortunately lost touch with the old counsel as the counel was not keeping well for a substantial period of time, hence legal advice could not be rendered to the applicant regarding the due course of action. ed judgment was passed, the applicant was also trying to explore amicable means of settling the issue but the efforts could not fructify. 6. That the applicant had to engage a new counsel and it is with great difficulty that the applicant was able to find a lawyer in Delhi who could take up his case. Some documents and records were also misplaced due to passage of a substantial period of time and some efforts were made to the ground that the car was defective and the petitioner had incurred omplaint preferred by the by relying on which had been signed by impugning the before the National Commission along with an n the application for was uld not fructified. It was also stated that the applicant had to engage a new counsel and with great difficulty, he was able to find a counsel in Delhi who could take up his case. The documents and records were also misplaced. The relevant extract of the 3. That the certified copy of the impugned judgment was 4. That the applicant unfortunately lost touch with the old counsel as the counel was not keeping well for a substantial period of time, hence legal advice could not be rendered to ed judgment was passed, the applicant was also trying to explore amicable means of 6. That the applicant had to engage a new counsel and it is a lawyer in Delhi who could take up his case. Some documents and records were also misplaced due to passage of a substantial period of time and some efforts were made to SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6008-2025 5. It is manifest that the application for condonation of d nebulous and vague. appeal within limitation. only with great difficulty. cause for condonation of delay. We are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the National Commission dismissing the appeal as being time barred. 6. Having heard the l we have also examined merits of the case. The petitioner had purchased the second hand car on that the car was purchased on 4). It was also mentioned that after the possession of the vehicle is dealer will not be liable for anything. 24.10.2022 (Annexure P 2025 3 It is manifest that the application for condonation of d nebulous and vague. The petitioner ought to have been diligent and filed the appeal within limitation. It is unbelievable that he could find a lawyer in Delhi only with great difficulty. The petitioner has not been able to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the National Commission dismissing the appeal as being Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, also examined merits of the case. The petitioner had purchased the second hand car on 24.10.2022. The terms and conditions of the sale indicated that the car was purchased on 24.10.2022 on ‘as is wh 4). It was also mentioned that after the possession of the vehicle is dealer will not be liable for anything. The relevant extract of delivery letter dated 24.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) is reproduced hereinunder: “Note :- 1. Seller will be liable for all previous challan/accidental/loan/court/police case etc till date. 2. Purchaser will be liable for challan/accident/loan/court/police case/theft etc. w.e.f. today. 3. Purchaser will be transfer the vehicle in his ow 45 days from the date of taking of the transfer papers of above said vehicle & dealer will not be liable for the same. 4. The vehicle has been sold on as is where is basis. 5. After taken the possession of the said vehicle dealer will not be liable for anything. 6. The vehicle has subject to CHANDIGARH jurisdiction only. Vehicle stand in the name of –SAME AS ABOVE Date. 24.10.2022 WITNESSES: 1) Ajay Partap Singh 9316175007 2) Gitika 9876195000 It is manifest that the application for condonation of delay is wholly ought to have been diligent and filed the It is unbelievable that he could find a lawyer in Delhi The petitioner has not been able to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the National Commission dismissing the appeal as being earned counsel for the petitioner at some length, also examined merits of the case. The petitioner had purchased the The terms and conditions of the sale indicated as is where is basis’ (Annexure P- 4). It was also mentioned that after the possession of the vehicle is delivered the The relevant extract of delivery letter dated 4) is reproduced hereinunder:- 1. Seller will be liable for all previous challan/accidental/loan/court/police case etc till date. 2. Purchaser will be liable for challan/accident/loan/court/police case/theft etc. w.e.f. today. 3. Purchaser will be transfer the vehicle in his own name within 45 days from the date of taking of the transfer papers of above said vehicle & dealer will not be liable for the same. 4. The vehicle has been sold on as is where is basis. 5. After taken the possession of the said liable for anything. 6. The vehicle has subject to CHANDIGARH jurisdiction only. SAME AS ABOVE- Time of Delivery 4:30 p.m. Abhishek Partap Singh # 51, Sec-48C, Chd. Phone 8872605212 -Sd- 24.10.2022/04:30 p.m. (BUYER) (I am fully satisfied for this deal)” wholly ought to have been diligent and filed the It is unbelievable that he could find a lawyer in Delhi The petitioner has not been able to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the National Commission dismissing the appeal as being earned counsel for the petitioner at some length, also examined merits of the case. The petitioner had purchased the The terms and conditions of the sale indicated - the The relevant extract of delivery letter dated 1. Seller will be liable for all previous challan/accidental/loan/court/police case etc till date. 2. Purchaser will be liable for challan/accident/loan/court/police case/theft etc. w.e.f. n name within 45 days from the date of taking of the transfer papers of above said vehicle & dealer will not be liable for the same. 4. The vehicle has been sold on as is where is basis. 5. After taken the possession of the said liable for anything. 6. The vehicle has subject SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6008-2025 7. The petitioner had purchased the to expect that there would ‘as is where is basis 8. In response to new Audi A6 car, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that although the vehicle has been discontinued but the vehicle would be car for about Rs.10,20,000/ terms and conditions of sale although sometimes even when second hand goods are sold, warranty is prescribed. 9. In view of the above, we do not find that there is any manifest illegality in the order of the National Commission warranting interference this Court while exercising dismissed. 13.05.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 4 The petitioner had purchased the nine year old to expect that there would be no defect in the car which has been purchased as is where is basis’ is asking for the moon. In response to a query of this Court as what would be the price of new Audi A6 car, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that although the vehicle has been discontinued but the vehicle would be about Rs.60- 65 lakhs while the petitione car for about Rs.10,20,000/-. There does not appear any warranty period in the terms and conditions of sale although sometimes even when second hand goods are sold, warranty is prescribed. In view of the above, we do not find that there is any manifest illegality in the order of the National Commission warranting interference this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. Consequently, t (ANUPINDER SI (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No nine year old second hand car and no defect in the car which has been purchased on query of this Court as what would be the price of new Audi A6 car, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that although the vehicle has been discontinued but the price of the brand new while the petitioner had purchased the There does not appear any warranty period in the terms and conditions of sale although sometimes even when second hand goods In view of the above, we do not find that there is any manifest illegality in the order of the National Commission warranting interference by Consequently, the petition stands (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No second hand car and on query of this Court as what would be the price of new Audi A6 car, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that price of the brand new r had purchased the There does not appear any warranty period in the terms and conditions of sale although sometimes even when second hand goods In view of the above, we do not find that there is any manifest by he petition stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.05.29 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document