1. This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), has been filed by a real estate developer, namely, Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, against the order dated 01.06.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while partly accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein, has directed the Opposite Parties, i.e. the Appellant herein and Respondents No. 2 and 3, to jointly and severally refund to the Complainant a sum of 36,00,000/-, deposited by her, with interest @ 15% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits, besides paying 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to her, as also escalation in prices, and 33,000/- as litigation costs, within a period of 45 days, failing which the amount of refund would carry interest @ 18% p.a., instead of interest @ 15% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits, and the amounts of compensation and litigation costs would carry interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, till realization.
2. Vide Agreement to Sale dated 26.03.2012, against sale consideration of 35,60,000/- plus External Development Charges, the Complainant had purchased a plot, admeasuring 200 sq. yards, from the Opposite Parties in Sector-113, Landran Chowk, Mohali. Since the Opposite Parties were required to obtain No Due and No Objection Certificates from the Competent Authorities for selling/transferring the land, no dates were fixed to finalize the bargain. Pursuant to payment of the entire sale consideration of 36,00,000/- by the Complainant as far back as on 11.06.2002, Residential Plot Buyers Agreement was entered into between the parties on 16.08.2013, i.e. after almost one year of receipt of the sale consideration, wherein, interestingly, no dates for handing over possession of the developed unit were specified by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant was told that on completion of the development of the project, intimation would be sent and the Sale Deed would be executed/registered in favour of the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of such intimation, which was not received even by the time the Complaint was filed. It was alleged that at the time when the Opposite Parties had sold the unit to the Complainant, they did not have the license to develop the colony and it was only in the year 2014 that they had got the said license. Realizing their fault and delay in handing over the possession, during the period from August, 2014 to February, 2015, the Opposite Parties paid an amount of 14,000/- per month to the Complainant and thereafter 21,000/- per month up-to July, 2015. Thrice the cheques issued by the Opposite Parties were received back unpaid. On 15.01.2016, the Complainant received a letter from the Opposite Parties stating that new Directors had joined the Company and they would be responsible to handover possession of the unit to the Complainant. Thereafter, despite several requests, the possession of the plot was not delivered to the Complainant.
3. In the aforesaid background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not delivering the possession of the plot, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, wherein the Complainant had prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund to her the total sum of 40,57,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.
4. As noted above, the State Commission, while partly accepting the Complaint, directed the Opposite Parties, including the Appellant, to jointly and severally comply with the directions, indicated above. Hence, the present Appeal.
5. It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of
88 days in filing the same. An Application, praying for condonation of the delay, has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 3 5 of the same, the Appellant has furnished the following short and crisp explanation:
3. That after passing of the impugned order dated 01/06/2016, certified copy of which was received by the Appellant on 24.06.2016, the Appellants took an advice about the Appeal and were advised that the Appeal is to be filed within 90 days of the date of the receipt. Then the Appellants reached the present Counsel for the First Appeal and there they came to know about the limitation period for the First Appeal. 4. That thereafter counsel for the Appellant took some time for preparing the First Appeal and same is filed on 20/10/2016.
5. That it is submitted herewith great respect that the delay caused in filing the instant appeal has been occasioned due to the wrong advice given to the Appellant and thus the delay caused is neither deliberate nor intentional but has occurred in the circumstances stated hereinabove.
6. In our view, the explanation furnished by the Appellant is wholly unsatisfactory. Though the Appellant has stated that there is a delay of 88 days in filing the Appeal but actually it is much more. From a perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 01.06.2016, it is apparent that it was dispatched to the Appellant on 10.06.2016, and, going by the same, the Appeal, required to be filed within a period of 30 days under Section 19 of the Act, has been filed with a delay of 102 days and not 88 days, as is pleaded by the Appellant. The Application is silent with regard to the dates when the Appellant received the advice to file the Appeal; when it contacted the present Counsel and came to know about the limitation period available for filing the Appeal; and how much time was spent in preparation of the Appeal. In the absence of any explanation from the Advocate, who had given a wrong advice to file the Appeal within a period of 90 days, the plea by the Appellant that the delay in filing the Appeal has occasioned due to the wrong advice given by the said Advocate does not inspire any confidence. In any case, the fact remains that the present Appeal has been filed with a delay of 102 days, over and above the limitation period of 30 days. We are convinced that the Appellant has nothing to say as regards delay and is only interested in protracting the matter on one pretext or the other. If the Appellant was really interested in challenging the impugned order, whereby certain directions were issued, it would have been on its toes to ensure that the Appeal was filed within time but that was not to be.
7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that the Application is not bonafide, the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 102 days in filing of the present Appeal. Further, in the event of the said unexplained delay being condoned and the Appeal entertained, the Complainant, who, despite having paid the entire sale consideration of 36,00,000/- as far back as on 11.06.2002 with the hope of getting a plot, is still not able to either get the possession of the plot or refund of the amount deposited, would be put to further harassment.
8. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we have also borne in mind the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development to the effect that while deciding an application for condonationAuthority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained.
9. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed on the short ground of limitation. ......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER