1.       By this First Appeal, under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), a Real Estate Developer, namely, Parsvnath Developers Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 21.07.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 405 of 2011. By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Complainants, the Respondents herein, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to refund to the Complainants a sum of ₹21,91,300/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization, within a period of 60 from the date of the order, failing which the Appellant was made liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a.     

2.       The Complainants had booked a residential flat, admeasuring 1710 sq. ft., in the project, christened as “Parsvnath Palacia”, launched by the Appellant in Greater Noida, U.P.  On payment of the booking amount of ₹4,50,000/-, vide cheque dated 27.06.2008, the Appellant issued allotment letter dated 10.07.2008 in favour of the Complainants. On 11.10.2008, a flat buyers’ agreement was entered into between the parties. As per Clause 10(a) of the said agreement, physical possession of the flat was required to be handed over to the Complainants within a period of 36 months of the date of commencement of the construction.  As regards delay in completion of the project, the agreement also stipulated compensation @ ₹5/- per sq. ft. per month.  As against the total sale consideration of ₹56,43,000/-, by 06.10.2010, the Complainants had paid a sum of ₹21,91,300/- to the Appellant. Despite several requests made, orally and by emails, between 10.04.2011 and 26.07.2011, the Appellant failed to deliver possession to the Complainants.  Faced with the dilemma, when the completion of the project was not in sight, they requested the Appellant to refund the amount paid by them, along with interest and damages.  Their request was in vain.  In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not completing the project on time and delivering the possession of the flat, the Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, wherein the reliefs, as mentioned in the Complaint, were prayed for.   

3.       Upon notice, the Appellant contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.      

4.       On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, as noted above, the State Commission allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-stated directions to the Appellant.

5.       It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 124 days in filing the same.  For condonation thereof, the Appellant has filed an Application on 05.04.2018, after filing of the Appeal.  For the sake of ready reference, the explanation furnished for the said delay is extracted below:

“4.     The Appellant received the free copy of Impugned Order on 31.07.2017.

5.       The Appellant upon receipt of Impugned Order, in order to discuss the case internally forwarded the copy of order to its advocate in the first week of September, 2017 for seeking an opinion for filing an Appeal.

6.       The Appellant’s Counsel at New Delhi asked for complete sets of documents related to the matter from the legal Cell of the Appellant Company, which were provided to the Counsel only in the First Week of October, 2017 as the lawyer who was dealing with the matter in the state commission was not well during that period.

7.       The Appeal was drafted and circulated in the third week of December 2017 and same was approved by the legal Cell of the Appellant Company only in the first week of January, 2018.  The signed copies of Appeal and Application were received by the Appellant’s Counsel only on 17.01.2018.  Thereafter, the captioned Appeal is being filed with a delay of 140 days.”   

(underlined for emphasis)

6.       Bearing in mind the broad principles, to be kept in view while dealing with the question of condonation of such delay, viz. the expression ‘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, more particularly when a Statute provides for a particular period of limitation, we are of the opinion that the explanation furnished by the Appellant is absolutely unsatisfactory and deserves to be out-rightly rejected.

7.       Admittedly, certified copy of the impugned order was received by the Appellant on 31.07.2017.  Involved in innumerable cases before the Consumer Fora and assisted by a team of competent lawyers, the Appellant was fully aware of the limited statutory period of 30 days, provided in Section 19 of the Act, for filing an Appeal against the order passed by the State Commission in a Complaint, but, just to seek an opinion, it took over a month in forwarding the copy of the order to its Advocate, in the first week of September, 2017.  Pertinently, by the said time, the aforesaid limitation period had already expired, yet the Appellant took a month in furnishing the documents, asked for by the Advocate, in the first week of October, 2017.  Thereafter, fully aware of the point of limitation, the Learned Advocate also took his merry time and sent the draft of the Appeal to the Appellant only in the third week of December, 2017, i.e. 2½ months after the receipt of the said documents.  After the approval of the Appeal by the Legal Cell of the Appellant Company, the Appeal was filed in this Commission only on 05.01.2018, with the afore-stated inordinate delay.  Evidently, the Appellant is trying to protract the matter on one pretext or the other, in order to buy time to comply with the impugned order, involving refund of the money deposited by the Complainants with them almost a decade ago.

8.       In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Appellant has failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 124 days in filing the present Appeal.  If the said unexplained delay is condoned and the Appeal is entertained, the Complainants, who, despite having parted with a huge sum of money 8 – 10 years ago, with the fond hope of getting a flat and a roof over their heads, would suffer further harassment and financial loss.      

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