1.         Repeatedly called out, intermittently.

No one appears for the appellant (the ‘builder co.’).

Mr. Pankaj Baghla, learned counsel is present for the respondent (the ‘complainant’).

2.         It is seen that on the previous occasion, i.e. on 13.01.2023, also, when the case was taken up, no one had appeared for the builder co. On that date, too, learned counsel was present for the complainant.

3.         A perusal of the record shows that this matter relates to a builder-buyer dispute. The State Commission has conclusively determined deficiency in service as well as adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the builder co.  It has ordered the builder co. to refund the amount of Rs.28,81,587/- deposited with it by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with Rs.40,000/- as lumpsum compensation for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses, with the amount if any paid by the builder co. to the complainant for delay (in accordance with the relevant clause of the subject agreement) to be deducted therefrom.

4.         The State Commission appears to have passed a well appraised and reasoned order, aptly dealing with the various issues germane in the matter. The award made by it also appears to be just and equitable, in the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The builder co. has been ordered to refund the deposited amount to the complainant with fair compensatory interest for unduly, unjustly and inequitable retaining the same. Reasonable lumpsum amount has been provided as compensation for mental agony & harassment and cost of litigation. The amount if any paid by the builder co. for delay has been duly taken care of.  As such, on the face of it, we do not find any palpable error on the part of the State Commission, though we have not gone deeper into the matter since learned counsel for the builder co. or any representative on its behalf is not available to assist. 

5.         Here it is relevant to note that the ideal normative period to decide an appeal is 90 days of its admission, as laid down in section 52 of the Act 2019. The present appeal was filed on 03.08.2020 with self-admitted delay of 331 days. Notice was ordered to be issued on 14.10.2020. It is now pending for over 02 years and 04 months. The appellant builder co. has even stopped appearing and pursing the matter in right earnest.

6.         In the light of the obtaining facts and situation, as briefly encapsulated above, we have no hesitation in dismissing the instant appeal in default for lack of prosecution.

7.         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 requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.