1.       These Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), have been filed by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (for short “the Developer”), against the two orders, both dated 03.08.2017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 991 and 992 of 2016.  By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Developer with a delay of 200 days, as barred by limitation as well as on merits.     

2.       The Appeals, together with the Applications, seeking condonation of the aforesaid delay, had been preferred by the Developer, questioning the correctness and legality of the orders dated 26.02.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Sonepat (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 283 and 282 of 2015, preferred by the Respondents herein, the Complainants.  By the said orders, the District Forum had allowed the Complaints and directed the Developer to refund the entire amount deposited by the Complainants, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization, as also pay compensation of ₹75,000/- to each of the Complainants.

3.       Since both the Complaints involved similar facts, common issues and the same Opposite Parties and the Forums below have decided the Complaints/Appeals on similar lines, though by separate orders, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.  However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 3368 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts, referred to hereinafter, are taken from the said Revision Petition, which would govern both the cases.

4.       In the year 2005, one Parshant Pilania had booked a plot, admeasuring 400 sq. yards, with the Developer.  He had deposited a sum of ₹5,50,000/- with the Developer as booking advance.  Subsequently, not being interested in the plot, he transferred the booking in the name of the Complainant, namely, Smt. Sunehri Devi.  The transfer was accepted by the Developer.  The Complainant deposited a further sum of ₹11,00,000/- with the Developer.  However, even after a lapse of nine years, the Developer did not allot any plot to the Complainant, despite several requests made by her in this behalf.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the said count, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.

5.       Upon contest, the District Forum arrived at the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Developer in not allotting plots to the Complainants.  Consequently, the Complaints were allowed with the aforesaid directions to the Developer. 

6.       Aggrieved, the Developer carried the matter further in its Appeals to the State Commission, albeit with a delay of 200 days.  Verbatim Applications, seeking condonation of the said delay, were filed with the Appeals.  Since the explanation furnished by the Developer is reproduced in the impugned orders, we refrain from burdening this order, by repeating the same in this order. 

7.       As noted above, while observing that the Developer had failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the said inordinate delay, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.  Hence, the present Revision Petitions.  

8.       Since the Appeals have been dismissed by the State Commission on the foremost ground of limitation, we are required to consider the question whether or not the State Commission has committed any jurisdictional error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under Proviso to Section 15 of the Act and in not condoning the said delay in filing the Appeals.  Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Developer on the said question. 

9.       Tested on the touchstone of the broad principles laid down in a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, viz., ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be construed liberally if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides are attributable to the party, praying for exercise of such discretion in its favour, and that when a statute provides for a particular period of limitation, it has to be applied with all its rigors, as an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the afore-stated conclusion. 

10.     Admittedly, the certified copies of the orders passed by the District Forum had been delivered to the Counsel, representing the Developer, on 10.03.2016.  However, he took ten days in transmitting the same to the Developer, on 20.03.2016.  Though there is limited statutory period of 30 days, available for filing the Appeal under Section 15 of the Act, yet, ignoring the said period, the Appellant took over a month in collecting the documents and furnishing the same its Counsel at New Delhi, in the last week of April, 2016, for seeking legal opinion in the matter.  Thereafter, the Applications are conspicuously silent as to the dates when the Counsel gave his opinion and when the Developer Company requisitioned the documents from the Counsel.  Admittedly, the said documents were received by the Developer in the last week of June, 2016, when the Appeals to be filed were already barred by limitation.  Even thereafter, the Developer took two weeks in forwarding the documents to its Counsel at New Delhi, in the second week of July, 2016.  The Counsel also took his merry time in drafting the Appeals and sending the same to the Developer in the first week of September, 2016.  Even at that stage, the Developer did not pursue the matter with any kind of seriousness and took over a month in approving and casually returning the same to the Counsel.  Ultimately, the Appeals were filed before the State Commission on 19.10.2016, with the aforesaid inordinate delay.  In our view, if the Developer was so concerned with the directions issued by the District Forum, it ought to have pursued the matter with seriousness at its end but that was not to be.  Evidently, the only intention of the Developer was to somehow protract the matter on one pretext or the other, depriving the Complainants from enjoying the fruits of their success, despite having orders in their favour by the District Forum.  In that view of the matter, we are equally not convinced with the explanation furnished by the Developer for the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeals and, thus, no fault can be found with the impugned decision on this account.  We are of the opinion that the State Commission, for the reasons stated in the impugned order, was fully justified in declining to condone the inordinate delay of 200 days in filing the Appeals.  

11.     Even on merits, we are in agreement with the State Commission that the Appeals were bereft of any merit.  Apart from the fact that the Forums below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Developer in not allotting the plots to the Complainants, there is nothing on record to show that the Developer had offered possession of the plots or that there was any justifiable reason for not issuing the allotment letters to the Complainants.  If, for any reason, the Developer was unable to allot the plots and issue the letters in this behalf to the Complainants within a reasonable period, after receiving substantial amounts in respect of the subject plots, it was obliged to refund the amounts deposited by the Complainants as sale consideration for the plots booked, together with the admitted simple interest, viz. 10% p.a., as per Clause (f) of the application for advance registration.  However, the amounts were not refunded to the Complainants.  Under the circumstances, the District Forum was fully justified in directing refund of the amounts along with interest. 

12.     For the afore-going reasons, we do not read any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders, warranting interference in our limited revisional jurisdiction.         

13.     Consequently, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine.