HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 29.11.2018 whereby a Consumer Complaint filed against the petitioner was partly allowed by the said Commission.  The complainant was allotted a plot of land in Gurgaon on 01.02.2005 at the price of Rs.12,01,200/- and he paid 25% of the price.  The remaining 75% of the price would be paid in installments.  The price of the plot was later enhanced by Rs.19,19,892/-.  The complainant made a total payment of Rs.43,85,120/- to the appellant in installments.  The case of the complainant is that the payments were made by him under protest and that interest could not have been charged on the amount by which the price was enhanced, till the possession was actually delivered to him.  He therefore, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint. 

The complaint was opposed by the appellant who justified the demand of Rs.19,19,892/- made from the complainant as well as the interest taken from him.  On merits, it was stated that the possession was taken by the complainant on 15.06.2017. 

2.      Vide impugned order dated 29.11.2018, the State Commission directed as under:

12.    Whatever the respondents can only charge the interest w.e.f. 18.09.2015 to 15.06.2017 and whatever the excess amount has been charged, because that amount has already been paid. The excess amount of the interest charged and paid by the allottee i.e. Rs.12,64,028/- would be returned to the present complainant within the period of three months alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum because a huge amount has been recovery illegally and utilized by the O.Ps. or nodal agency if the payment is not made within the period of three months, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum for the defaulting period. The compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-  for harassment, causing mental and unfair trade practice and the amount of Rs.21,000/-   as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P. Act would also be attractable.

3.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant HUDA is before this Commission by way of this appeal.  Since there is a delay of 655 days (one year nine months and sixteen days), an application seeking condonation of the said delay has also been filed.

4.      The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

3. That after the judgment was passed, the said order was received through email dated 14-01-2019 from the HSVP counsel Sh. Saurabh Sharma. The Asstt. Distt. Attorney vide letter dated 22-01-2019 addressed to the Accounts Branch and Assistant. Sector-57 directed to put up the order on file alongwith financial implication for obtaining approval from Ld. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram for filing First appeal before this Hon'ble Commission and getting the counsel engaged from Head Quarter.

4. That the Asstt. Distt. Attorney has continuously followed the matter with Accounts Branch and Assistant Sector-57 vide various letters dated 9-10-19, 18-10-19, 8-11-19, 6-01-2020 and 14-01-2020.

5. That on receipt of letter dated 22-01 -2019 of ADA the financial implications amounting to Rs. 16,11,208/- were worked out by the Accounts Branch on 7-02-2019. The case was processed on 8-02-2019 by the dealing official seeking comments of ADA. The ADA opined on 8-02-2019 that the case alongwith complete calculations as per order of SCDRC & HSVP policy may be sent to Ld. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram for obtaining necessary approval for filing appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.

6. That the said report/opinion was put up by the dealing Clerk on 1-04-2019 which was further processed by the dealing Assistant, Dy. Superintendent, & AEO on 4-04-2019 & 10-04-2019 and the case was sent to Ld. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram seeking permission for filing the present appeal on 17-04-2019 and Ld. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram granted necessary permission on 8-05-2019 which was marked to ADA on 9-05-2019 by Dy. Superintendent.

7. That a new ADA who had joined the office on 17-07-2019 (AN) and remained posted upto 3-10-2019 not put up the case for filing appeal, thus present ADA (Ms. Anika Kharb) has been issuing the letters to Accounts Branch & Assistant Sector-57, as the approval accorded by the Id. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram on 8-05-2019 was not tagged/link up with the case file which resulted inordinate delay.

8. That the file was again sent to rectify the mistake and tagged/link up the case file to the Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram for approval and necessary action. Thereafter the Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram accorded the approval for filing the present appeal after taking all necessary steps.

9. That along with the copy of the judgment, the same was sent to Advocate General’s office seeking opinion as to whether it is a fit case for filing the present appeal or not.

10. That after receiving the opinion from Advocate General’s office it took some time for the legal cell of the Appellant to collect the necessary documents and send it to the Estate Officer, Gurgaon.

11. That the Estate Officer Gurgaon sent the copy of the documents to the Advocate in New Delhi to prepare the draft appeal. After preparing the draft, the same was sent to Estate Officer, Gurgaon who in turn sent it to the legal cell for approval. After receiving the approval over the draft after some modifications, a final draft was sent along with affidavits to be executed by the concerned official.

12. That however the same could not be filed because of the lockdown due to the spread of Corona Virus and closure of all the offices. Hence, some delay has occurred in filing the present appeal due to the circumstances mentioned hereinabove.

5.      It is evident from a perusal of the application that a copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant through e-mail on 14.01.2019.  The application also shows that the Assistant District Attorney promptly sent a letter to the Accounts Branch on 22.01.2019.  The application shows that the Asstt. District Attorney continuously followed up the matter with the Accounts Branch and Assistant Sector-57 vide letters detailed in para 4 of the application.  The application also shows that the Administrator granted requisite permission for filing an appeal against the order of the State Commission on 08.05.2019.  However, though the prescribed period for filing appeal with this Commission had already expired by the date on which approval was granted by the Administrator, no promptness in the matter was shown by the officials of the appellant authority and the matter was again sent to the Administrator for seeking approval.  Para 8 of the application shows that the Administrator again granted approval to file the appeal.  However, the date on which approval was granted by the Administrator for the second time, is not disclosed in the application. 

6.      The application shows that after second approval by the Administrator, the copy of the impugned order was sent to the Advocate General for seeking his opinion. 

I fail to appreciate why the opinion of the Advocate General was sought even after the Administrator had granted approval on two occasions to challenge the order passed by the State Commission.  If any legal opinion was required, that should have been obtained before seeking approval of the Administrator and not after he had already granted the requisite approval. 

7.      Moreover, the application does not disclose when the copy of the order was sent to the office of the Advocate General and when the opinion from the Advocate General was received.  Though it is alleged that the appeal could not be filed because of the lockdown, due to spread of Corona Virus, the lockdown started only in late March 2020 whereas the first approval by the Administrator had been granted on 08.05.2019 more than ten months before the lockdown started.  As regards the second approval, as noted earlier, the application does not disclose when the said second approval was granted.  Therefore, it cannot be ascertained what was the time lag before the second approval and the commencement of the lockdown due to Covid-19. 

8.      Even after the lockdown was lifted, the appellant did not bother to approach this Commission at an early date, the appeal having been filed on 14.10.2020.  The casual attitude displayed by the officials of the appellant authority leaves much to be desired.  The appellant got the copy of the impugned order on 14.01.2019 and filed the appeal before this Commission on 14.10.2020 i.e. after one year and nine months of receiving the impugned order.  The facts and circumstances of the case, as noted hereinabove, do not justify the condonation of such a huge delay.  Though, the appellant being a Statute Authority, some latitude may be justified in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, but when the delay is so abnormal, this Commission will be failing in its duty if it condones such a delay without even a semblance of justification.  Therefore, in my opinion, no justification for condoning the abnormal delay of 655 days in institution of this appeal is made out.  The application seeking condonation of delay is therefore, dismissed.  Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.