Respondent/complainant entered into an agreement with the appellant/opposite party for purchase of flat No.1441, floor No.14, Block No.7, Type-2 in M/s Aliens Space Station-I to be developed by the appellant and paid Rs.13.40,000/- against the total consideration of Rs.49,53,225/-.  Appellant assured the respondent that the flat would be handed over to him on 02.04.2010 on payment of balance amount of Rs.38,75,225/-.  Subsequently, without issuing any notice

-3-

to the respondent allotment of the flat was cancelled.  Respondent served a legal notice on the appellant which was not replied.  Respondent being aggrieved filed the complaint alleging that the appellant had allotted the said flat to some other person.  Respondent sought a direction to the appellant to refund the sum of Rs.13,40,000/- along with interest of Rs.19,47,000/- for the period from 03.10.2006 to 31.01.2012 besides compensation of Rs.10 Lac and costs of Rs.55,000/-.

             Appellant despite service did not put in appearance before the State Commission.

             State Commission taking the facts stated in the complaint duly supported by the evidence produced by the respondent, which remained uncontroverted and unrebutted, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to refund the sum of Rs.13,40,000/- to the respondent along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of payment till the date of realization along with compensation of         Rs.1 Lac and costs of Rs.10,000/-.  State Commission in its order has observed as under:

-4-

  6.   The complainant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and proved payment of amounts by filing a bunch of receipts marked as Ex.A2 besides the agreement marked as Ex.A1 wherein the flat was reserved for him.  He also filed Ex.A3 office copy of the legal notice got issued by him and the acknowledgement thereof.  Since the affidavit of the complainant was uncontroverted, and in the light of d0ocuments filed by the complainant, it is apparent that the opposite party builder had reserved the flat No.1441, floor No.14, Block No.7, type-2 comprising of 2191 sft built up area in their venture M/s Aliens Space Station-I situated at Tellapur village in Ranga Reddy district.  Having agreed that it would complete the flat on or before 2.4.2010 and hand it over to the complainant, the opposite parties did not do so.  They neither denied payment made by the complainant under the agreement nor the allegation that it had allotted the very same flat to some other person.  Even for the legal notice issued by the complainant it did not evoke any reply.  When no explanation whatsoever was given, the complainant proved beyond doubt that they no say on the allegations made by him.  Unfortunately, the complainant did not file any document to show that

there was escalation of prices.  The opposite parties did not demand rate of interest at 2.50% per month on the ground that the agreement provided for the same.”

          This appeal has been filed with a delay of 95 days which is over and above the statutory period of 30 days given for filing the appeal.   Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a special period of limitation has been provided to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.  Complaint has to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of filing where no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days where expert evidence is required to be taken.  The inordinate delay of 95 days, which is three times of the statutory period of 30 days provided for filing the appeal, cannot be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  The only reason given in the application for condonation of delay is that the State Commission dispatched the free certified copy of the order on 08.08.2012 by an ordinary post to the appellant’s old address and as such office of the appellant did not receive the same; that the appellant had not received the notice intimating the date of hearing and as such nobody was present before State Commission.  We are not satisfied with cause shown for the delay.  Day to day delay has also not been explained.  Supreme

-6-

Court, in a recent judgment, “Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial  Development  Authority – IV  (2011) CPJ  63  (SC)”  has held that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained.  Relevant observations are as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for

condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.”

-7-

             The inordinate delay of 95 days, which is three times of the statutory period of 30 days provided for filing the appeal, under the circumstances cannot be condoned.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed as a consequence thereof appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

          Even on merits, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Appellant did not appear despite service and was proceeded ex parte.  Facts stated by the respondent in the complaint duly supported by the evidence produced by the respondent remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.  The State Commission rightly taking the facts to be correct allowed the complaint.  Moreover, the State Commission has simply directed the appellant to refund the amount paid by the respondent along with interest.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.