1.   This First Appeal has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the State Commission in C.C. No.106 of 2016.

2.   The present appeal has been filed with reported delay of 682 days. As the delay is neither insignificant nor small, the appellant who is appearing in person and the learned counsel for the respondents have been heard first on the application seeking condonation of delay in order to decide whether the same deserves to be condoned or not.

3.        The appellant has relied upon the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application itself which have been reiterated by him.  In order to facilitate better appreciation it may be appropriate to quote the delay condonation application as such which reads as follows:-

1. That the present appeal is filed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2021 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No. 106 of 2016. The Hon'ble State Commission passed the impugned order on 25.2.2021 awarding the Appellant compensation to the tune of ₹24,09,983 being interest on the amount of ₹49,18,334 calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 25.6.2013 till the date of handing over possession i.e. 28.7.2017. Appellant received the copy of the impugned order on 16.03.2021. 

2. The facts and circumstances of the case are stated in detail in the accompanying appeal and the Appellants crave leave of this Hon'ble Commission to refer to and rely upon the same as part and parcel of this application.

3. Immediately after obtaining the impugned order the appellant filed an application before the State Commission seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 18,44,000/- deposited by him before the State Commission. The same was allowed and the appellant was returned the amount deposited by him before the State Commission along with interest. Appellant handed over the entire records of the case to the counsel who was handling the matter before the Execution court in Trivandrum. 

4. Thereafter when the appellant inspected the flat he found that it had no electricity connection and that there was no water supply. The appellant approached the Kochi office of the respondents requesting the respondents to provide water and electricity connection and to complete the formalities of the sale. Appellant also informed the respondents several times the abovesaid fact through whats app and email. However there was no response and so the appellant has not been able to occupy the premises due to the deliberate inaction and negligence of the respondents. 

5. The appellant sent a message by whats app to the authorised representative of the respondents on 4.9.2021. The authorised representative responded back stating that she had sent several reminders to their legal team and that they had not responded back. As a result no steps were taken by the respondent to provide or restore the electricity connection. copy of the email communications issued by the Kochi office to the respondents is already annexed to the appeal. 

6. On 4.9.2021 the appellant instituted execution proceedings before the Hon'ble State Commission under section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

7. The appellant also filed petition before the Hon'ble state Commission on 11.12.2021 seeking a direction to the judgment debtors to provide and ensure electricity and water connection for use and occupation of the apartment and to direct respondents to execute the sale deed of the apartment without prejudice to the right of the appellant to claim compensation for the loss suffered by him in this regard 

8.The Hon'ble State commission took serious note of the deliberate inaction of the respondents in executing the order passed by the state Commission. When the Hon'ble state Commission took steps for execution of the impugned order, the appellant was contacted over phone by one Suresh Krishna on behalf of the respondents in October 2022 exploring the possibility of a settlement. 

9. On 20.10.2022 Sri Suresh Krishna informed the appellant that necessary steps are being taken by the Kochi office of the respondents to provide electricity connection and water supply. He also requested the appellant to contact one Sri. Sajid working in the Kochi office. On 9.11.2022 Sri Suresh Krishna sent a Whatsapp message informing the appellant that electricity will be resumed on the same day or next day and that Sri Sajid will inform him. Copy of the whats app messages exchanged between the appellant and Sri Suresh Krishna is produced with the appeal. 

10. Sri. Sajid also kept on making similar promise. He informed the appellant that the respondents had done the necessary formalities for electric connection including payment of the amount due to Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) in November 2022. However no electric supply was provided to the flat allotted to the appellant. 
 

11. In the meanwhile the respondents filed first appeal no 776/2022 before this Honorable Commission challenging the impugned order passed by the state Commission on 13.10.2022. This Hon’ble Commission issued notice and interim stay of the impugned order 21.11.2022. The notice was sent by the registry to the appellant on 2.12.2022. It is only after receiving the notice issued by the Hon’ble commission the appellant realised that he was taken for a ride by she respondents. In view of the gross injustice committed by the respondents the appellant has no other option other than to the an appeal before this Honourable Commission challenging the impugned order to the extent certain reliefs were not granted to him. 

12. As per order 41 rule 22 C.P.C the appellant is entitled to file cross appeal within 30 days of receiving the notice issued by this Hon'ble Commission in the appeal filed by the respondents, in the circumstances the delay that has occurred in filing the appeal, is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is therefore submitted that the said delay may be graciously condoned.  

4.       The perusal of the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application makes one thing quite clear that the appellant appears to have been initially content with the Order that was passed by the State Commission.  The execution was filed in order to get the impugned Order executed and adequate steps appear to have been taken in that regard.  The same remained pending for quite some time.  In the meanwhile, it also appears that the respondents were also approached to ameliorate the grievances which the appellant perceived as impediments in the way of effecting the compliance of the Order passed by the State Commission.  All this process consumed several months.  Thereafter when the appellant came to know that the respondents have filed an appeal in the National Commission he also felt promted to file his appeal.

5.       Normally, the Bench adopts a kind of liberal indulgence in favour of the defaulting appellant who fails to file the appeal or other petition within the limitation period.  It is ordinarily preferred to decide the case on merits rather than to thwart the cause at the very threshold on the ground of limitation.  But while saying so it does not imply that the law of limitation wherever it is provided can either be blissfully ignored or soft paddled at will.  Such kind of approach will entirety frustrate and defeat the very purpose which inspires the enactment on law of limitation. The statutory law regarding limitation, wherever it is provided has a salutary purpose to serve, and has to be respected and complied with. In no case can any forum judicial or quasi-judicial can ride roughshod on the solemn provisions regarding the law which provides limitation period. It goes without saying that when a particular order attains finality it simultaneously gives rise to a right to the other side and unless there is sufficient cause, which may justify the condonation of delay and satisfy the Bench that there were justifiable reasons which explain as to why the appeal was not filed within the stipulated period of time, the Bench cannot act either whimsically or capriciously. The judicial discretion which this Bench exercises in the matters of condonation of delay is not an exercise of some kind of privilege or prerogative, it is a judicial discretion and has to be exercised judiciously. The availability of sufficient cause has to be seen in perspective of the conspicuous facts and circumstances of each case and the onus of showing such factual basis from which may emanate the convincing grounds to vindicate the delayed filing has to be discharged by the appellant who seeks judicial indulgence in this regard.

6.        When this Bench makes an attempt to evaluate the reasonableness of the grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application in order to determine whether they may be called sufficient grounds to earn the condonation it is found that the grounds pleaded fall much short of constituting valid reasons on the basis of which the delay may be condoned.  If the appellant did not deem it needed or appropriate to file the appeal because the other side had not filed the appeal, it is difficult  to recognize the same as a good cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.  If the impugned Order that was passed, whatever was its nature and whatever relief did it grant, was satisfying enough to the extent that the appellant did not take any steps to challenge that Order the only new development said to have taken place is the fact that the respondents had filed the appeal.  If the award that was made in the complaint by the State Commission was such that it substantially satisfied the appellant, it would be naturally be the respondents /opposite parties  who would find cause to file the appeal if they felt that the award passed by the State Commission was unjust or inappropriate or against facts or law.  Whether the respondents would feel aggrieved or not is a matter of their own perception and the subject of decision to file an appeal against the impugned Order would belong to them.  That is an independent subject for the respondents to decide who had to take the call. But if the respondents / opposite parties were late and took a long time to file the appeal against the impugned Order it is difficult to hold that the appellant / complainant would automatically get a right accrued to him not to file its appeal within prescribed period of time if it felt aggrieved by the same at all.  So far as the right to file cross objections in  a civil appeal within 30 days is concerned there is an independent procedure with relation to civil appeals filed under Civil Procedure Code.  Consumer Protection Act is an independent Act which provides for summary procedure to handle and deal with the consumer complaints.  The Consumer Protection Act is a comprehensive, self-evident and self-contained statutory compendium which governs the procedure relating to consumer disputes.   Though at times we may draw succour from the principles of the provisions contained in other Acts including CPC but that does not go to imply that the prescribed period of time to file an appeal as has been provided under Consumer Protection Act can be overridden or bypassed by giving reference to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code meant for filing cross-objections in a civil appeal.  The present appeal has been filed not in the nature of cross objections.  It is an independent appeal filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as is amply born out by the memo. of first appeal  itself that has been filed.  There is not even an implied or covert reference in it to anything like “cross objections”.

7.       It is not of little relevance to mention at this stage that the first appeal filed on behalf of the respondents / opposite parties was also filed with a delay of 565 days and after hearing that matter, the delay in filing that first appeal no.  (776 of 2022) has also not been found fit to be condoned and the delay condonation application moved in the afore-said appeal filed on behalf of the respondents relating to the same matter has already been dismissed on the ground of limitation.  That being so, the principal reason detailed in the delay condonation application which nudged or spurred the appellant to file this appeal itself disappears now.  The impugned Order was passed on 25.02.2021 and the free copy of the same was delivered by hand on 17.03.2021 itself without much delay.  This date and data is available on the stamp which is affixed to the photocopy of the certified copy of the impugned Order that has been filed and is part of the record.  It may be observed that in the wake of the covid pandemic a long period lasting upto 28.02.2022 stood exempted by the Orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court and there is absolutely no problem in discounting that period of time while reckoning the period of limitation.  The real problem starts and relates to the period which followed the last date of the exemption period so granted. The present appeal has been filed as belatedly as on 07.02.2023.  The delay involved is not of days or weeks but of several months and almost a year was allowed to lapse before the decision to file the appeal was taken.  The explanations which have been put forth on behalf of the appellant do not impress and fall much short of qualifying as sufficient cause or valid reasons to vindicate the delayed filing of the appeal.  The yawning gap that separates the end date of the period exempted by Hon’ble the Apex Court and the date when the appeal has been filed is much too drawn out to be lightly ignored or soft peddled. 

      In the over-all evaluation it is found that the grounds pleaded for condonation of delay are unworthy of acceptance.  The delay condonation application stands rejected.      

8.       Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed on limitation.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately.  The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.