The case has been called out for final hearing the second time after the lunch break. As per the office report the Appellants as well as their Counsel have been duly served with notice informing fixation of the case before the Circuit Bench for this date.  Despite due service, the Appellants remain unrepresented. The Respondent is present in person. We have heard him.

Pursuant to the direction issued vide order dated 11.02.2017, the Respondent/Complainant has produced a certificate issued by the PIO-Cum-Assistant Registrar, of HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the information sought for by the Respondent under the RTI Act, 2005.  In the information disclosed, it is stated that an amount of ₹2,000/- had been paid as Court fees by the Complainant by means of a Demand Draft dated 24.02.2014.  In the light of the said certificate, we are convinced that the objection taken on behalf of the Appellants, relating to entertainment of the Complaint by the State Commission without requisite Court fee, was absolutely without any basis and going by the earlier proceedings in the case before this Commission, it was a ploy to delay the decision in the Appeal. 

As noted above despite service of notice the Appellants have chosen not to appear in these proceedings to prosecute the Appeal.

Under the circumstances we are constrained to dismiss the Appeal for non-prosecution. We order accordingly.

 Even otherwise, regard being had to the fact that admittedly the construction of the flat in question was not complete by the committed date of possession i.e. 07.12.2009 and as noted in para 14 of the impugned order the same was purportedly offered on 11.06.2014 i.e. after a lapse of about 55 months of the committed date of delivery of possession, the direction by the State Commission to the Appellants to refund the amount of ₹14,50,348/-  deposited by the Complainant with them, along with a very reasonable  rate of interest @ 10.5% p.a. and a compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for the mental harassment, cannot be said to be illegal by any standards. Hence even on merits the Appeal is bereft of any merit.  We say no more on that aspect and dismiss the Appeal for non-prosecution. 

Vide order dated 20.11.2014 the Appellants were directed to deposit a paltry sum of ₹2,00,000/- in the State Commission as a pre-condition for stay of the operation of the order impugned in this Appeal.  If the said amount had been deposited by the Appellants, the same shall be released to the Respondent forthwith, on his moving appropriate application in this behalf.