1.     This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd., a real estate developer, and its functionaries, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, against the order dated 20.10.2015, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”), in Complaint No. 47 of 2013.  By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, the State Commission has quashed the letter of cancellation dated 25.07.2010, and directed the Appellants herein to issue a letter of instalments to the Complainants with respect to the Unit in question in view of their application form dated 03.02.2010.  Further, while directing that no interest or penal interest for the period between the execution of the application and the letter of instalment, to be issued by the Appellants, would be charged from the Complainants, the State Commission has held that the Complainants are entitled to get the possession of the Unit and get the sale deed executed after completing the requisite formalities.  The State Commission has also awarded litigation costs, quantified at ₹15,000/-, with the stipulation that in case the said order is not complied with by the Appellants within a period of two months, they would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainants from the date of each deposit till the date of compliance.   

2.       On 03.02.2010, the Complainants, the mother and her minor son, had booked a ready to move in Rosewood Duplex Villa, offered by the Appellants in their proposed Hi-Tech Township in Lucknow, christened as “Ansal API Golf City”.  They paid a sum of ₹1,77,340/-, vide demand draft dated 02.02.2010 drawn at ICICI Bank Ltd.  The Complainants were assured that soon the Appellants would execute the agreement, giving details of the payment to be made for the said Unit.  Complainant No.1 had indicated to the Appellants that she was ready to pay the total price of the Unit after getting financial assistance from a Bank, on receipt of agreement and necessary documents, required for obtaining the loan.  Despite having waited for many months, the needful was not done by the Appellants.  The Appellants informed the Complainants that the allotted Unit being a sample flat of the Company, it would take some time to build a new flat, which would be handed over to them.  Complainants letters dated 21.10.2011, 15.11.2011 as also a registered notice dated 03.10.2012 did not evoke any response from the Appellants.

2.1.    Left with no option, alleging gross deficiency in service on their part for not executing documents/sale deed in their favour, in spite of availability of several other Rosewood Duplex Villas, the Complainants filed the afore-noted Complaint before the State Commission, wherein the afore-stated directions came to be issued by the State Commission.  Hence, the Appeal.

3.       It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 55 days in filing the same.  An application, supported with an affidavit, praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Appeal.  In paragraphs no.3 to 9 of the said affidavit, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation:

“(3)    That the interim order was reserved by the Hon’ble State Commission and was delivered on 20-10-2015 due to the error (sic) of my Clerk, who failed to check the daily cause list.  That the undersigned counsel could not be informed of the date of delivery of the Judgment/order dated 20-10-2015.

(4)     That the undersigned counsel while (sic) randomly checking the website of the learned commission came across the internet copy of the order on 04-03-2015 and immediately on 05-11-2015 applied first time an application for certified copy of the interim order dated 20-10-2015 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Lucknow.

(5)     That as the legal cell of the company is based at Delhi, the undersigned counsel immediately informed the head office and courier one copy of the Judgment/Order dated 20-10-2015 for seeking further instruction in the above matter, the respondent company immediately instructed the undersigned counsel on 15-11-2015 to prepare an Appeal for (sic) filing the same in the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan New Delhi with a specific instruction to send the draft of the Appeal for their perusal.

(6)     That the undersigned counsel took some time to study the case and the order and prepare the draft of First Appeal and on 25-11-2015 to the head office for their perusal and signing.

(7)     That further the undersigned counsel the draft of the vetted Appeal on 12-12-2015 along with the instruction to finalize and the file the aforesaid Appeal before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan New Delhi.

(8)     That the undersigned counsel also immediately informed the company for making a draft …

(9)     That due to the winter vacation the deponent received the Bank Draft on 21-01-2016 Bank Draft No. 285845, and hence is filing the appeal with the above mentioned delay condonation affidavit.”

4.       In our view, the explanation furnished by the Appellants wholly unsatisfactory.  The plea that Counsel’s Clerk had failed to check the daily cause list of the Court concerned and was responsible for the delay in applying for a certified copy of the impugned order, is an afterthought and does not merit acceptance.  Further, admittedly, on 05.11.2015, the Counsel had applied for/obtained the certified copy of the impugned order and immediately on receipt thereof claims to have informed the Appellants Head Office at Delhi, which took 10 days in conveying its decision to file the Appeal.  Though on 25.11.2015 the Counsel sent the Appeal, drafted by him, to the Appellants, yet they took 18 days in returning the vetted Appeal to the Counsel on 12.12.2015. Thereafter, the Appellants took further more than a month in preparing the demand draft, a pre-requisite for filing of an Appeal.  Bearing in mind the limited statutory period available for filing the Appeal under Section 19 of the Act and since the Appeal, proposed to be filed, was already barred by limitation, without wasting any further time, the Appellants ought to have issued necessary instructions to their Counsel for filing the Appeal without any further delay, but evidently they have pursued the matter in a lackadaisical manner.  The explanation furnished by the Appellants is self-serving and does not inspire any confidence.  Under the circumstances, although at the first blush the period of delay, viz. 55 days, may appear to be not too large but on deeper scrutiny, we are convinced that the Appellants are trying to somehow gain time to comply with the directions, sought to be impugned in the Appeal, and, in the process, deprive a hapless lady of the pleasure of owning her own house, she and her son have been waiting for over five years.   

5.       For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that apart from the fact that the application is not bonafide, the Appellants have failed to make out a “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay of 55 days, which under the given circumstances is inordinate, in filing of the present Appeal.   

6.       In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we have also borne in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578], to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained.     

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