Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. Respondent/complainant applied for allotment for H.I.G. house in Vivekanand Vihar Residential Scheme floated by the petitioner. Petitioner allotted house No.25 in the aforesaid residential colony to the -2- respondent on 21st April, 1993. Tentative price of the house was fixed at Rs.5,75,000/-. Respondent after depositing a few instalments dis-continued to deposit the instalments as development in the residential colony was progressing at a very slow speed. Petitioner issued a notice to the respondent in August, 2001 requiring him to deposit Rs.2,11,120/- alongwtih interest. Respondent did not deposit the amount as no development had taken place. Neither the construction of the house was completed nor the roads were laid. Even facility of water and electricity had not been made available in the colony. Offer of the petitioner to take the house on “As is where is basis” was not accepted by the respondent. Respondent applied for conversion of the allotment from house to a plot. Petitioner conceded to the said request and allotted plot No. 47 to her in the same scheme. Petitioner after adjusting the amount already paid asked the respondent to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,17,000/- in 12 six monthly instalments. Respondent did not pay the amount as the house was not complete. Instead respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint. Petitioner was directed to handover the plot to the respondent on her depositing the remaining amount failing which the petitioner was directed to return the amount deposited by the respondent. -3- Respondent deposited the balance amount as per directions issued by the District Forum. Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 7 months. State Commission dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation as well as on merits. Explanation given by the petitioner for condoning the delay that its lawyer did not handover the papers to the petitioner was not accepted. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 7 months in filing the appeal. Under the statute the petitioner could file the appeal within 30 days whereas the appeal was filed after 210 days which is seven times the statutory period given for filing the appeal. No valid explanation had been given by the petitioner to condone the delay. Appeal has rightly been dismissed by the State Commission as barred by time. The State Commission has dismissed the appeal on merits by observing thus: “A crucial question which would crop up for our determination is as to whether the Kanpur Development Authority committed a deficiency in service by no developing -4- the plot in time it is significant to note that the Forum below had instructed the appellant Authority by means of the judgment in appeal to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant provided the latter deposited 50% price of the plot in balance within three months from the date of the judgment. The judgment was pronounced on 19.04.2003 and the complainant deposited Rs.1,17,000/- on 17.07.2003. Obviously the complainant had carried out her part of obligation but the Development authority did not execute the sale deed perhaps on the ground that it was entitled to claim interest on the balance amount which had not been paid in time to the Authority. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the objections filed by Smt. Gayatri Tripathi against the memorandum of this appeal and in para 3 of her objections, she has categorically mentioned that the development of the plot is still not complete and the plot allotted to her is not identifiable. In para-4 also it is specifically recited that since she cannot find out the plot at the site in question, the appellant is not entitled to claim any interest. It is important to note that this averment of Smt. Tripathi has not been controverted by the Development Authority by bringing any evidence on record to counter the respondent’s averment about her plot being still not identifiable. Therefore, question for payment of interest would not arise at all. Now more than six years have elapsed after Smt. Tripathi had deposited the entire price of the plot and if the plot is still not identifiable the Development Authority’s request for payment of interest can, -5- by no stretch of reasoning, be said to be justified. We would, therefore, direct that the Development Authority must execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent no sooner than later. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission on merits as well. Respondent could not be asked to pay the interest as no development had taken place. even the plot was not identifiable. No merit. Dismissed. | 
