This revision petition has been filed with a delay of 609 days which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing the revision petition.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer fora are required to decide the case within a period of 90 days from the date of filing, in case, no expert evidence is required to be taken and within 150 days,

-2-

wherever expert evidence is required to be taken.  The inordinate delay of 609 days could not be condoned without showing sufficient cause.  Delay of each day has to be explained.  The only ground shown in the application for condonation of delay was that the file was moving from table to table for getting sanction to file the revision petition.  We are not satisfied with the cause shown for condonation of delay.  Application for condonation of delay is dismissed, as a consequence thereof the revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. 

           Since this matter is pending for the last five years, we dispose of the revision petition on merits as well.

          Complainant/respondent was allotted plot No.1475/23-23A vide letter dated 13.11.1985.  Respondent paid the entire consideration amount including the additional/enhanced price.  Petitioner did not deliver the possession of the plot in spite of repeated requests made by the respondent.  On 21.11.1990 petitioner intimated the respondent that the plot No.1475/23-23A has been omitted as per lay out plan and plot NO.4230-P has been reconstituted and demanded Rs.4048/- for new plot which was also deposited by the respondent. 

-3-

Thereafter, again petitioner exchanged plot No.4230-P/23-23A to plot NO.2702, Sector 23/23A, Gurgaon.  Possession of the plot NO.2702/23-23A Gurgaon was offered on 17.03.1997 and the possession was delivered to the respondent on 05.04.1997, but the petitioner again intimated that the possession of plot no.2702 could not be delivered to the respondent due to some reasons.  Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the respondent to allot plot no.2702.

          On being served petitioner put in appearance and filed Written Statement.  In the Written Statement, petitioner took several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the complaint was barred by limitation.  On merits it was submitted that plot No.1475/23-23A was allotted to the respondent on 13.11.2005 but denied that the respondent had paid the entire consideration amount.  It was stated that the sum of Rs.2072/- as extension fee was still due from the respondent; that the possession of the plot no.2702 offered to the respondent was delivered to her on 15.04.1997 but as per Condition No.7 of the allotment letter,

-4-

possession of the plot was offered only after completion of development or that since the area had not been developed the subsequent letter was written not to allot plot no.2702 could not be allotted.

          District Forum on perusal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to deliver physical possession of the plot no.2702 Sector 23/23A to the respondent within 1 month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the petitioner was also directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposits made by the respondent from the respective dates of deposits till the date of delivery of the possession.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission without compliance with the provisions of second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As per second proviso to Section 15, the appeal could not be entertained only on deposit of Rs.25,000/- or 50% of the amount awarded whichever is less.  Second proviso to Section 15 reads as under:

“no appeal shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the person against whom a decree has been passed, deposits 50% of the amount

-5-

awarded or Twenty Five Thousand Rupees, whichever is less”.

Since the petitioner did not deposit the amount in spite of opportunities given, the State Commission dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. 

          At the time of issuance of notice, petitioner was directed to deliver the possession and pay interest @ 12% p.a. instead of 18%.  Petitioner in compliance to the order passed by this Commission has handed over the possession of plot no.2702 on 20.08.2008.  Petitioner also paid Rs.69,118/- as interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount till the possession.

Perusal of second proviso to Section 15 would show that the appeal could not be entertained without complying with the second proviso to Section 15.  Petitioner admittedly did not comply with the provisions of second proviso to Section 15 and under the circumstances the appeal filed by the petitioner could not be entertained.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Order passed by the District Forum has been complied with.  No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.

-6-

          Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the petitioner has paid the interest upto 1997 and not till the date of possession.  Respondent is put at liberty to work out his remedies in the executing court.