HON’BLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER The dispute relates to 2016, we are in 2019. 1. Learned counsels for the appellant – builder co. and the respondent – complainant were heard. The material on record was perused. Specifically, the impugned Order dated 25.07.2017 of the State Commission and the application for condonation of delay were perused. 2. To begin with, the application for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal was considered. 3. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 25.07.2017 of the State Commission with self-admitted delay of 214 days (The Registry has reported a delay of 248 days). 4. The State Commission vide its said Order dated 25.07.2017 had allowed the complaint: 7. In view of above, complaint is allowed. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited-builder i.e. O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.44,62,389/- (Rupees Forty Four Lac sixty two thousand three eighty nine) to complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from, the date of it’s respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. (para 7 of the State Commission’s Order) 5. The appeal has been filed with admitted delay of 214 days. The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 2 to 12 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below: 2. The Impugned Order was pronounced on 25.07.2017; the same was prepared by the office attached to the Ld. State Commission and was delivered to the Counsel for the Appellant at Panchkula on 11.10.2017. 3.. The Appellant has filed the present application seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying Appeal with a delay of 214 days, beyond the statutory period ending on 11.11.2017 prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred as “the Act”). 4. That the Counsel for the Appellant at Panchkula conducting the said Complaint before the Ld. State Commission collated the certified copy of the Impugned Order and sent to the Appellant’s head office at Delhi which was received in the month of October, 2017. 5. That the legal department of the Appellant Company upon receipt of Impugned Order in order to discuss the case internally and with their Advocate at Delhi requested the local counsel at Panchkula to send the entire judicial file of the case so that the same could be discussed with the Advocates at Delhi. 6. That the Local counsel of the Appellant company at Panchkula sent the entire judicial file to the Appellant office only in the month of January, 2018. 7. The Appellant Company thereafter collated all the papers related to the case from its advocate at Panchkula and sent it to its advocate seeking opinion to prefer appeal from the Impugned Order in the month of February, 2018. 8. Since the file was not consisted the reply filed by the Appellant Company before the State Commission Panchkula which caused further delay. Therefore, the Appellant Company further requested the Local counsel at Panchkula to provide immediately the copy of written statement submitted in the present complaint. The same could only be received in the month of March, 2018. 9. That thereafter the Appellant provided the complete set of documents filed before the Ld. State Commission to the Advocates at Delhi. Thereafter, the Advocates for the Appellant, upon perusing the complete set of pleadings and documents filed before the Ld. State Commission opined the Appellant that an appeal may be preferred from the Impugned Order. 10. Thereafter the advocates for the Appellant drafted the Appeal, miscellaneous application etc. as filed before this Hon’ble Commission and in the month of May, 2018 the complete Memo of Appeal was sent to the Appellant Company by the Advocates for settlement, signatures and for further sending it to the advocates representing the Appellant before this Commission. 11. That after receipt of the entire appeal alongwith the relevant documents, the same was sent to the management of the Appellant Company for its perusal which took another week time and thereafter to carrying out the aforesaid exercise, the Appeal and the accompanying applications were settled. The counsel for the Appellant at Delhi received a signed copy of the Appeal from the Legal Cell of the Appellant Company only on 20.06.2018 and on the same day the Appeal filed in this Hon’ble Commission. In the process there has been a delay of 214 days in filing of present appeal. 12. That the delay in filing the accompanying Appeal is for the reason aforesaid and is neither intentional nor deliberate but occasioned due to fact that the impugned order has been passed in Panchkula and the Appeal had to be filed in Delhi. The delay thus having been for reasons beyond the guard of the Appellant despite the diligence deserves to be condoned by this Hon’ble Commission. (paras 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 of the application for condonation of delay) 6. The Act 1986 is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes (Statement of Objects and Reasons). The normative ideal period for disposing of an appeal is 90 days (section 19A of the Act). The period of limitation to file appeal is 30 days (section 19 of the Act). This appeal has been filed with (further) admitted delay of 214 days. 7. The stated reasons for delay, as reproduced, verbatim, in toto, in para 5 above, point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal. 8. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible. 9. This bench however wants to also satisfy itself that there would be no miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. The State Commission has but ordered the builder co. to refund to the complainant the amount deposited by the complainant with it (Rs.44,62,389/-), with interest (@ 12% p.a.), compensation (Rs. 25,000/-) and cost of litigation (Rs. 10,000/-). It is noted that the said amount of Rs. 44,62,389/- was deposited by the complainant with the builder co. between 2010 and 2014; the agreed date of completion of the project in question / subject flat was 22.12.2013; the “grace period” of 6 months has also expired; the complaint was filed with the State Commission on 27.01.2016; the decision of the State Commission was pronounced on 25.07.2017; the project in question / subject flat has however not been duly and fully completed till even today (15.02.2019; the date of hearing on admission). Without attempting to examine or adjudicate on the impugned Order of the State Commission on merit, this bench but does not find any reason visible to convince it that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the delay is not condoned. On the contrary, it finds the conduct of the builder co. to have a bad air. 10. The application for condonation of delay, being unconvincing and devoid of merit, is dismissed. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed on limitation. 11. Needless to add that the State Commission shall undertake execution of its Order as per the law. 12. A copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within ten days. | 
