1.       Challenge in this batch of 21 First Appeals, under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Unitech Limited, one of the Opposite Parties in the Complaints under the Act, is to different orders, dated 26.02.2016, 15.03.2016, 26.04.2016, 13.06.2016, 02.08.2016, 22.08.2016, 12.09.2016, 07.10.2016, 20.10.2016, 07.11.2016, 13.12.2016, 27.02.2017 & 02.03.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Cases No. 296 & 312 of 2015 and 52, 109, 202, 205, 259, 284, 338, 360, 396, 426, 427, 432, 433, 453, 467, 605, 606, 700 & 881 of 2016.  By the impugned orders, while holding that the Opposite Parties, including the Appellant herein, were guilty of deficiency in service in neither delivering to the Respondents/Complainants the possession of the units, by the stipulated dates, sometime in the year 2012, nor refunding the huge amounts deposited by them, when even the development was not complete, in as much as, even the amenities were not available, the State Commission has partly allowed the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants in these Appeals. The State Commission has directed the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally refund to the Complainants the amounts, deposited by each one of them, along with interest @ 15% compounded quarterly, from the respective dates of deposits; pay compensation ranging between ₹1,00,000/- and ₹3,00,000/- towards mental agony etc. and litigation costs, ranging between ₹25,000/- and ₹50,000/-, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order, with a default stipulation of penal interest @ 18% compounded quarterly, on the amount of refund and interest @ 15% compounded quarterly on the amount of compensation and litigation costs.  In some cases, the interest prayed for by the Complainants @ 12% - 13% p.a., on the amount of deposits made by them with the Opposite Parties, was granted, with a default stipulation of penal interest @ 15% - 16% p.a. on the amount of refund and interest @ 12% - 13% p.a. on the amounts of compensation and litigation costs.   

2.       Since the afore-noted Complaints, involving more or less similar facts; common issues; and the same Opposite Parties, have been disposed of by the State Commission on identical lines, though by different orders, the present Appeals, arising out of the said Complaints, are being disposed of by this common order.  However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 2296 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts referred to hereinafter are also taken from the said Appeal, which would govern all the Appeals.

3.       By paying a booking amount of ₹2,57,000/- the Complainants had applied with the Opposite Parties for purchase of a residential floor in the project, christened as “Unihomes, Uniworld City”, launched by them in Sector-107, Mohali.  On 28.10.2009, the parties had entered into a Buyer’s Agreement.  In terms of the said Agreement, the remaining sale consideration was to be paid by the Complainants in instalments.  The possession of the floor booked was required to be delivered by the Opposite Parties by October, 2012, i.e. within 36 months from the date of signing of the said agreement, after receipt of full consideration.  However, the possession was not delivered within the stipulated period.  Various requests of the Complainants to the Opposite Parties for doing the needful fell on deaf ears.  On 15.02.2016, the Complainants got issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, which also evoked no response.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties on the aforesaid counts, the Complainants filed the Complaint before the State Commission, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.     

4.       Upon notice, the Appellant herein contested the Complaint(s) by filing its Written Version.

5.       On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the State Commission, as noted above, partly allowed the Complaints and issued the aforesaid directions to the Opposite Parties, including the Appellant.  Hence, the present Appeals.  

6.       It is pointed out by the office that the Appeals are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay, ranging between 220 and 598 days in filing the same.  In the Applications, filed along with the Appeals, seeking condonation of delay, the said inordinate delay was sought to be explained on the specious pleas that the Appellant is in a turmoil; the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter related to all projects of the Appellant Company; entire legal team of the Appellant has been tirelessly occupied in handling the ongoing humongous legal matters and litigations; and various old staff and members of the legal team of the Appellant, aware of the issues, have left the employment of the Appellant in the last one and a half years.  Since the Bench was not satisfied with the explanation furnished for the said enormous delay, vide orders dated 23.11.2017/27.11.2017, the Appellant was granted an opportunity to file better affidavits, explaining the inordinate delay caused in filing these Appeals, in two sets.  In the said affidavits, which are verbatim on similar lines, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation:  

“5.     …  the Appellant is going through turmoil and is in a state of complete disarray for some years.  It has been facing issues related to manpower, finances, and operations in addition to the major downward trend in the real estate industry adding to the current condition of the Appellant.  Due to all these factors, there have been substantial difficulties in handling the day to day operations of the Appellant including litigation matters leading to delays.

6.       That the present affidavit seeks to elaborate on the reasons due to which there was a delay in filing of the First Appeal against the Impugned Judgment.  Broad reasons causing delays in the filing of the FAs are set below and thereafter explained in detail:

1. Unprecedented increase in litigation involving the Appellant Company since 2014.

    

2. Attrition issues faced by the Appellant Company since 2015 till October, 2017.

    

3. Closure of Chandigarh Office in April, 2017.

    

4. Managing Directors of the Appellant Company in custody for 4.5 months now.

    

5. Moratorium by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 02.09.2016 until 15.12.2016.

    

6. More than 10,000 home buyers of the Appellant Company before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Matters pending in Hon’ble Supreme Court.

    

7. Abnormally high rate of interest (18% compounded quarterly) leading to lower rates of settlement with various litigants.

…                …                    …             …                …”  

7.       We are not at all satisfied with the explanation.  At the outset, it may be noted that the issues relating to the present condition of the Appellant Company, on the basis of which the delay in filing the Appeals is sought to be explained, viz. mass exodus; financial crunch; occupancy of the entire legal team in handling the litigations; seizing of the matter by the Supreme Court; attrition of the Appellant Company; closure of its Chandigarh office, etc., have no relevance qua the period of limitation, stipulated under the Act for filing the Appeals.  The period of limitation prescribed in the Act does not admit of any exception of the kind pleaded above, for extension of the period of limitation.  Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that the delay in filing of the Appeals was on account of mass exodus of the staff of the Appellant Company from February, 2015, a perusal of list of employees, who are stated to have left the Company (page-6 of the affidavit) shows that almost all such employees had no significant role to play in so far as the question of filing of these Appeals was concerned.  Moreover, majority of them had resigned much prior to the filing of a number of Complaints (which were duly contested on behalf of the Appellant), leaving aside the subsequent events of passing of the impugned orders and filing of the present Appeals.  It is evident that out of 20 personnel, named in the affidavit, who are stated to have left the Appellant Company from February 2015 till July 2017, not more than six such employees had any role in the subject at issue, and, pertinently, almost all of them had left the Appellant Company either before the passing of the impugned orders or much after the expiry of period of limitation.  We also find that the Authorized Signatory of the Appellant, namely, Ms. Suman Mattoo, who has filed the present Appeals as well as the better affidavits, was authorized to deal with these matters by a Board Resolution way back on 27.09.2016, yet, the present Appeals have been filed with the aforesaid inordinate delay in November, 2017.  No explanation for the delay of over one year is forthcoming in the Applications/affidavits.  It is also pertinent to note that the Appellant Company is assisted by a battery of lawyers, who have been contesting cases against it even before this Fora.  We are convinced that the Appellant is trying to protract the cases in order to somehow buy time to refund the amounts due to the Complainants, by adopting all possible dilatory tactics, including the plea of paucity of staff.  A valuable right, accruing in favour of each of the Complainants, on expiry of the period of limitation to challenge the order, cannot be taken away merely on the plea that the Appellant had to face unprecedented litigations.  A Complainant has only one case, in which he was succeeded in getting favourable a order and his right to enjoy its fruits cannot be taken away or whittled down on the ground that the Judgment Debtor is involved in a prolonged litigation.  It is trite that the provision regarding the period of limitation has to be construed strictly [see: State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), (2009) 5 SCC 121)].  We have no hesitation in holding that the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the present Appeals. Further, in the event of the said unexplained delay being condoned and the Appeals entertained, the Complainants, who, despite having parted with a huge sums of money, with the fond hope of getting possession of the residential units booked, have neither got the possession of the same nor the refund of the amounts deposited, would be put to further harassment and financial loss.       

8.       In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, we have also borne in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained.                

9.       Consequently, all the Appeals are dismissed in limine on the short ground of limitation.   

10.     Since the Appeals are not being entertained as barred by limitation, we direct that the statutory deposit made at the time of filing of the Appeals shall be refunded to the Appellant, if so opted.