Concurrent consumer-forum findings on deficiency in service warrant no interference absent grounds for a different view.

The complainant contracted with M/s Scenic Beauty Homes Private Limited to construct a house for ₹49,90,000.

Alleging delay and defective and incomplete work, he terminated the agreement and filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner, who disputed personal liability because the company—not he individually—was party to the agreement.

The District Commission awarded ₹2,29,000 for pending work, ₹1,00,000 for mental agony and deficiency in service, and ₹25,000 in litigation expenses.

The State Commission dismissed the petitioner’s first appeal and affirmed that order.

The National Commission declined to condone a 210-day delay in filing the second appeal, finding the explanation insufficient, and did not examine the appeal on its merits.

The petitioner then challenged the consumer commissions’ orders before the High Court under Article 227.

Whether the National Commission’s refusal to condone the 210-day delay in filing the second appeal warranted interference

Whether the District Commission’s findings and award, affirmed by the State Commission, disclosed a basis for interference by the High Court

The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that delay must be satisfactorily explained for condonation and accepted the National Commission’s assessment that the petitioner had not explained the delay for the entire period.

It also declined to disturb the consumer commissions’ factual findings where the District Commission had considered the material and the State Commission had affirmed its assessment.

The National Commission considered the petitioner’s explanation concerning his grandparents’ medical needs and the supporting documents, but found that they did not satisfactorily account for the full delay; the High Court found no basis to interfere with that conclusion.

On the underlying dispute, the District Commission had considered the agreed completion dates, the parties’ correspondence, and the evidence concerning pending work, while the State Commission had considered the petitioner’s explanations involving COVID-19 and the complainant’s alleged interference.

The High Court found no material requiring a different view of those factual findings.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the District Commission’s operative directions undisturbed.