This Revision Petition No.641 of 2020 has been filed with a delay. According to the application for condonation of delay, I.A. No.998 of 2021, it has been claimed that there was no delay in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court waiving limitation with effect from 23.03.2020.  As per computation of the Registry, delay, counted from the date of impugned order, 20.11.2019, is of 86 days. 

          It has been contended in the application and in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the order of the State Commission dated 20.11.2019 was issued on 20.01.2020 and received on 24.01.2020.  The period of 90 days, counted from 24.01.2020 required the revision petition to be filed, within 24.4.2020.  In between, vide order dated 23.03.2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court waived limitation on account of pandemic.  Accordingly, considering the aforesaid position, delay application is allowed.

          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 

He submits that the flat was booked by the respondent/complainant, with earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter, despite follow up by the OP, no effective steps were taken by the complainant to pay the remaining amount for the flat.  It was submitted before the District Forum in consumer complaint no.125/2011 filed by the respondent/complainant that the OP was ready to execute and honour its side of obligation by executing Flat Buyer’s Agreement for the same project after getting due payments with interest of the delayed period.  OP had also stated before the District Forum that it had offered to refund the amount after deducting 20% as administration charge and 10% as cancellation charges as per the practice prevailing in most of real estate companies.  So, it had pleaded for dismissal of the consumer complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

          The District Forum, noting that the amount paid by the complainant was vide cheque dated 28.09.2006, found it very strange that the first communication was sent by the complainant after more than three years i.e. 14.7.2009.  Thereafter, after considering submission of the petitioner/OP, the District Forum directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment as well as Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  The District Forum had reasoned that even after passing of more than three years, the project was not completed. Whereas, as per the terms and conditions of the registration form, OP was to deliver the possession of the flat within three years.  Under these circumstances, the District Forum reasoned that OP had no right to deduct any amount.  On appeal by the petitioner before the State Commission, the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.11.2019.  The impugned order reads as below:

“20.11.2019

Item No.39

FA-660/17

Present: None for the Appellant.

             Respondent in person alongwith Sh. Tapas Tyagi, Adv.

        None appeared for the appellant on the last date i.e. 02.05.2019.  It appears that appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal.  The appeal is dismissed in default.

        File be consigned to Record Room.”

It would be seen from the above that no one had appeared for the appellant even on the last date 2.5.2019.  This effectively means that after filing the appeal, it was not pursued by the petitioner/OP with any seriousness at all. 

          In this situation, there was nothing wrong in the appeal having been dismissed in default by the State Commission.  It must not be forgotten that the State Commission was bound to summary disposal as per the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Such willful delays have no place in summary jurisdiction.

          As such, there being no error apparent in the order of the State Commission, this revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.