1.     By this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the Complainants call in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 14.03.2016, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Case No.28/2012.  By the impugned order, while holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties in not making available the Unit allotted to the Complainants, the State Commission has allowed the Complaint and directed them to handover a Unit of the same model having 200 sq. meters, in place of House No. D-1-0019, within three months.  The State Commission has also directed the Respondents to pay to the Complainants ₹20,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as litigation costs.

2.       In order to purchase a house in the Scheme, christened as “Sushant Golf City” floated by the Respondents, the Appellants/Complainants had entered into an Agreement with the Respondents on 29.11.2007, where-upon House No.D/1/0019, admeasuring 200 sq. meters, with 130 sq. meters built-up area, was allotted to the Complainants.  The cost of the house was ₹28,90,687/-.  The possession thereof was to be delivered to the Complainants within two years.  As per the terms and conditions of the said Agreement, the Complainants paid approximately 95% of the sale consideration, i.e. ₹22,82,615/-, up-to 10.01.2008, by obtaining a housing loan of ₹20,00,000/- from HDFC Bank.  However, despite repeated requests, the possession of the Unit was not delivered to the Complainants.  According to the Complainants, because of non-delivery of the possession of the Unit within the stipulated time, apart from the fact that they were deprived of enjoyment of the house, they were also forced to stay in a rented house at ₹10,000/- per month.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in not handing over possession of the allotted house, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, wherein the Complainants had prayed for the reliefs mentioned in the Complaint.

3.       Upon contest, the State Commission, as noted above, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents in not making available the Unit allotted to the Complainants and consequently issued the aforesaid directions to the Respondents.    

4.       Dissatisfied, the Complainants are before us, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5.       It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 268 days in filing the same.  An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Appeal.  In the said Application, following explanation has been furnished by the Appellants:

“2.      That there is a delay of 164 days in filing the present appeal.  It is submitted that the said delay is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to facts as mentioned hereunder.

3.       It is submitted that appellant company (it should be the Complainants) received the certified copy of order dated 14.03.2016 from the registry on 25.03.2016.

4.       That on being apprised with the said order, the appellant company (again it should be the Complainants) immediately instructed its present counsel to take necessary remedial steps for the complainants/appellants against the said impugned order.

5.       That the counsel for the Complainants immediately filed a review application before the Hon’ble State Commission on 18.04.2016.  That the Ld. State Commission after hearing the arguments please dismissed the review application on 20.05.2016.  The certified copy of the order dated 20.05.2016 is annexed herewith as Annexure A.

6.       That the counsel for the Complainants/Appellants who had filed the review application did not inform the dismissal order to the Appellants in time and kept on assuring the complainants that order is reserved by the Ld. State Commission.

7.       That due to some official engagements, the Complainants were compelled to travel to Muscat (Oman) in the month of August to October, therefore the Complainants were not available in the said period to enquire about the proceedings filed against the respondents.

8.       That the Complainants when came back from Muscat after the official assignments in Nov 2016, after enquiry from the counsel of the Complainants comes to know that the review application filed by them got dismissed.

9.       That the Appellants/Complainants contacted the present counsel at Delhi in the month of November for filing of appeal.  It is pertinent to mention that the Appellants tried their best to get a Lawyer at Delhi for filing of the Appeal before this Commission from their friends and relatives which took substantial period of time.

10.     That the present counsel immediately asked the Appellants to provide the relevant documents which obtained by the Appellants from the counsel in December.  That the present counsel took time to prepare the appeal, as certain clarifications were sought from time to time for preparation of appeal.  Finally the appeal was ready by 05.01.2016 and sent for signatures as the Appellants are residing at Lucknow.  Accordingly, the present appeal is filed on 17.01.2017.”

6.       Having heard learned Counsel for the Appellants on the question of delay, we are of the view that the afore-extracted explanation is wholly unsatisfactory and, hence, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed on that short ground.

7.       At the outset, we may note that the delay in filing the Appeal is not of 164 days, as stated by the Appellants.  In fact, reckoned from the admitted date of receipt of the substantive order by the Appellants on 25.03.2016, the actual delay is of 268 days.  Therefore, the Appeal was required to be filed on or before 24.04.2016 but the same has been filed only on 17.01.2017, with the aforesaid delay.  It is true that after receipt of the impugned order, the Appellants had filed a Review application on 18.04.2016 before the State Commission, which had been dismissed on 20.05.2016, but regard being had to the fact that the filing of Review application, particularly before a Fora, which is not vested with such jurisdiction, does not extend the period of limitation albeit on specific order in this behalf by a Fora of Competent Jurisdiction, the said application has no relevance insofar as the period of limitation for challenging the substantive order is concerned.  Further, in the absence of any explanation from the Counsel concerned, the plea of the Appellants to the effect that the Counsel had not informed them about the order passed in the review application is evidently an after-thought. The Complainants were duly represented by their Counsel, who could be authorized to take appropriate steps in the matter.  Even after coming to know about the order passed in the review application in November, 2016, the Appellants took two months in getting the Appeal filed before this Commission.    

8.       For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the Appellants have failed to make out a sufficient cause for condonation of the aforesaid inordinate delay of 268 days in filing the Appeal and we are not inclined to condone the same.      

9.       Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.