These appeals are directed against different orders passed by the State Commission whereby the appellants were directed to refund the amount which the respondents had paid to them for purchasing residential flats/plots in ‘Uniworld City’ at Mohali.  The State Commission directed the appellants also to pay interest @ 12%/15% per annum on the principal sum paid by the respondents to them.  Compensation and cost of litigation was also awarded to the complainants in addition to the direction for refund of the principal amount alongwith interest.  In the event of the failure of the appellants to comply with the said order within the time stipulated in the order, the interest was to increase to 18% per annum interest compounded quarterly.  

2.      Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellants are before this Commission by way of these appeals. Since there is a delay ranging from 66 days to 487 days in filing the appeals, the appellants have also filed applications seeking condonation of the said delay. 

3.      The applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been opposed by the respondents/complainants who have stated that similar applications filed by appellants have already been rejected by another Bench of this Commission vide its order dated 05.12.2017 in FA No.2296 of 2017 Unitech Limited & Anr. Vs. Om Prakash Dua & Ors. and connected matters. 

4.      The order passed by this Commission in Om Prakash Dua (supra) to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

6.       It is pointed out by the office that the Appeals are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay, ranging between 220 and 598 days in filing the same.  In the Applications, filed along with the Appeals, seeking condonation of delay, the said inordinate delay was sought to be explained on the specious pleas that the Appellant is in a turmoil; the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter related to all projects of the Appellant Company; entire legal team of the Appellant has been tirelessly occupied in handling the ongoing humongous legal matters and litigations; and various old staff and members of the legal team of the Appellant, aware of the issues, have left the employment of the Appellant in the last one and a half years.  Since the Bench was not satisfied with the explanation furnished for the said enormous delay, vide orders dated 23.11.2017/27.11.2017, the Appellant was granted an opportunity to file better affidavits, explaining the inordinate delay caused in filing these Appeals, in two sets.  In the said affidavits, which are verbatim on similar lines, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation:  

“5.     …  the Appellant is going through turmoil and is in a state of complete disarray for some years.  It has been facing issues related to manpower, finances, and operations in addition to the major downward trend in the real estate industry adding to the current condition of the Appellant.  Due to all these factors, there have been substantial difficulties in handling the day to day operations of the Appellant including litigation matters leading to delays. 

6.       That the present affidavit seeks to elaborate on the reasons due to which there was a delay in filing of the First Appeal against the Impugned Judgment.  Broad reasons causing delays in the filing of the FAs are set below and thereafter explained in detail: 

1. Unprecedented increase in litigation involving the Appellant Company since 2014. 
2. Attrition issues faced by the Appellant Company since 2015 till October, 2017. 
3. Closure of Chandigarh Office in April, 2017. 
4. Managing Directors of the Appellant Company in custody for 4.5 months now. 
5. Moratorium by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 02.09.2016 until 15.12.2016. 
6. More than 10,000 home buyers of the Appellant Company before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Matters pending in Hon’ble Supreme Court. 
7. Abnormally high rate of interest (18% compounded quarterly) leading to lower rates of settlement with various litigants. 

…                …                    …             …                …”   

7.       We are not at all satisfied with the explanation.  At the outset, it may be noted that the issues relating to the present condition of the Appellant Company, on the basis of which the delay in filing the Appeals is sought to be explained, viz. mass exodus; financial crunch; occupancy of the entire legal team in handling the litigations; seizing of the matter by the Supreme Court; attrition of the Appellant Company; closure of its Chandigarh office, etc., have no relevance qua the period of limitation, stipulated under the Act for filing the Appeals.  The period of limitation prescribed in the Act does not admit of any exception of the kind pleaded above, for extension of the period of limitation.  Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that the delay in filing of the Appeals was on account of mass exodus of the staff of the Appellant Company from February, 2015, a perusal of list of employees, who are stated to have left the Company (page-6 of the affidavit) shows that almost all such employees had no significant role to play in so far as the question of filing of these Appeals was concerned.  Moreover, majority of them had resigned much prior to the filing of a number of Complaints (which were duly contested on behalf of the Appellant), leaving aside the subsequent events of passing of the impugned orders and filing of the present Appeals.  It is evident that out of 20 personnel, named in the affidavit, who are stated to have left the Appellant Company from February 2015 till July 2017, not more than six such employees had any role in the subject at issue, and, pertinently, almost all of them had left the Appellant Company either before the passing of the impugned orders or much after the expiry of period of limitation.  We also find that the Authorized Signatory of the Appellant, namely, Ms. Suman Mattoo, who has filed the present Appeals as well as the better affidavits, was authorized to deal with these matters by a Board Resolution way back on 27.09.2016, yet, the present Appeals have been filed with the aforesaid inordinate delay in November, 2017.  No explanation for the delay of over one year is forthcoming in the Applications/affidavits.  It is also pertinent to note that the Appellant Company is assisted by a battery of lawyers, who have been contesting cases against it even before this Fora.  We are convinced that the Appellant is trying to protract the cases in order to somehow buy time to refund the amounts due to the Complainants, by adopting all possible dilatory tactics, including the plea of paucity of staff.  A valuable right, accruing in favour of each of the Complainants, on expiry of the period of limitation to challenge the order, cannot be taken away merely on the plea that the Appellant had to face unprecedented litigations.  A Complainant has only one case, in which he was succeeded in getting favourable a order and his right to enjoy its fruits cannot be taken away or whittled down on the ground that the Judgment Debtor is involved in a prolonged litigation.  It is trite that the provision regarding the period of limitation has to be construed strictly [see: State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121)].  We have no hesitation in holding that the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the present Appeals. Further, in the event of the said unexplained delay being condoned and the Appeals entertained, the Complainants, who, despite having parted with a huge sums of money, with the fond hope of getting possession of the residential units booked, have neither got the possession of the same nor the refund of the amounts deposited, would be put to further harassment and financial loss.       

8.       In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, we have also borne in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation 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, all the Appeals are dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.   

10.     Since the Appeals are not being entertained as barred by limitation, we direct that the statutory deposit made at the time of filing of the Appeals shall be refunded to the Appellant, if so opted.”

5.      In view of the above referred order of this Commission, the applications filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay are dismissed and consequently, all the appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation.  The statutory deposit made at the time of filing of the appeals shall be refunded to the appellants if so sought by them.