The dispute relates to 2014, we are in 2018. The learned counsel for the appellant – builder co., who was present along with AR of the appellant – builder co., requested for an adjournment. The request was politely declined. The learned proxy counsel for the respondent – complainant, who was present, requested for an adjournment. The request was politely declined. 1. To begin with, the application for condonation of delay was taken up. 2. AR for the appellant – builder co. was heard. The material on record was perused. Specifically, the impugned Order dated 09.02.2017 of the State Commission and the application for condonation of delay were perused. 3. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 09.02.2017 of the State Commission with self - admitted delay of 60 days. The Registry has reported a delay of 104 days. 4. The State Commission vide its said Order dated 09.02.2017 had partly allowed the complaint: 7. As a sequel to above discussion, complainant is held entitled for the refund of Rs. 40,18,125/- alongwith interest @ Rs. 09% per annum from the date of respective deposits. He is also held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,000/- qua mental harassment etc. and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 5. The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 60 days. The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 2 to 7 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below: 2. The Appellant company received the certified copy of the impugned order from the Ld. State commission Panchkula on 22.03.2017, after which, the same was sent to the office of the counsel for the Appellant situated in Delhi for its perusal and necessary inputs. The same reached the office of the counsel for the Appellant on or around 28.03.2017, after which the counsel for the appellant called for the record of the property in question from the local office of the Appellant company to be able to give appropriate inputs and advice to the Appellant company for necessary action in furtherance of the passing of the impugned order. 3. The local office of the Appellant being in panchkula, Haryana, the record of the property in question had to be brought from the counsel handling the case of the Appellant in Panchkula. Due to the said reason, the counsel for the Appellant in Delhi received the records only on or about 07.04.2017. Thereafter, the counsel perused the entire records of the property in question and advised the Appellant Company that an appeal be filed against the Impugned order. 4. Thereafter, the Appellant Company took steps to call for the entire file of the matter consisting of pleadings, etc. in order to the send the same to the counsel for the Appellant to enable them to prepare the draft of the present appeal. The said files were called for and provided to the counsel on or about 12.04.2017. However, after the receipt of the said file, it was seen that a few important documents were missing from the file. The Counsel for the Appellant immediately pointed out the same to the Appellant Company. After enquiries, it was found that the said documents got misplaced in the transit. The Appellant company immediately took necessary action to trace the said documents; however, it took a considerable period of time to trace the same. The said documents were traced on or about 05.05.2017. 5. Upon receiving the same, the counsel for the Appellant herein concluded the process of drafting the instant appeal and sent the same to the Appellant Company on or about 10.05.2017 for its perusal and necessary instructions. Thereafter, the Appellant Company approved the same and instructed the counsel to take necessary steps to file the same before this Hon’ble Commission to avoid any further delay. 6. Pursuant to the same, the counsel for the Appellant, accordingly compiled the instant appeal and handed over to the clerk for taking the same forward for filing. Unfortunately, the clerk of the counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Ravi Yadav, had to immediately leave for this hometown due to an emergency on or about 13.05.2017. The counsel for the Appellant was under the bonafide belief that the instant appeal had been filed before this Hon’ble Commission. However, at the time of providing the status update of all the cases to the Appellant Company, it was seen that the instant appeal had not been filed as the said compilation had inadvertently been tagged along with the file which the clerk, by mistake took along with him. It was only in the month of June that the clerk returned to work, the instant appeal could have been filed. Thereafter, the concerned officer of the Appellant Company initiated the process of preparation of the demand draft towards payment of court fees, after returning from the summer break i.e. on or around 18.06.2017. Therefore, the instant appeal is being filed at this belated stage. However, the said delay was unintentional. 7. Owing to the above mentioned circumstances, there is an inadvertent delay of 60 days if computed from the date of receipt of the impugned order to filing of the present appeal. The Appellant most respectfully submits that the said delay is entirely unintentional and completely bonafide. 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 60 days. 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, and are illogical and absurd in explaining convincingly and cogently the day-to-day delay in filing the appeal. 7. No just or sufficient cause to explain the delay is visible. 8. 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 ordered the appellant – builder co. to refund to the respondent - complainant a sum of Rs. 40,18,125/- deposited by the respondent - complainant with interest (@ Rs. 9% per annum), compensation (Rs. 21,000/-) and litigation expenses (Rs. 11,000/-). 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 appellant – builder co. to have a bad air. 9. The application for condonation of delay being unconvincing and devoid of merit is dismissed. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed on limitation. 10. Needless to add that the State Commission shall proceed with execution as per the law. A copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within ten days. | 
