The dispute relates to 2011, we are in 2019. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant – builder co. and the respondent – complainant was heard. The material on record was perused. Specifically, the impugned Order dated 09.10.2015 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 09.10.2015 of the State Commission with self-admitted delay of 190 days. (The Registry has reported a delay of 219 days). 4. The State Commission vide its said Order dated 09.10.2015 had allowed the complaint: 9) In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice. We, therefore, direct the OP as under: i. to refund the amount of Rs. 21,03,750/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation. ii. to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant towards inconvenience, harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant. iii. to pay litigation charges of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The abovesaid payment shall be made by the OP to the complainant within a period of sixty days from today failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of sixty days from today. (para 9 of the State Commission’s Order) 5. The appeal has been filed with admitted delay of 190 days. The stated reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as mentioned in paras 2 to 15 of the application for condonation of delay, are as below: 2. It is submitted that a copy of the afore-mentioned order of the Ld. State Commission was provided to the Appellant Company by the Ld. State Commission on 18.12.2015. 3. It is submitted that upon receiving the order from the Ld. State Commission, the Appellant Company evaluated the matter internally at various levels. It was finally decided that in view of the fact that the impugned order was passed without appreciating the submission and contentions raised by the Appellant herein, the present was a case fit for filing an appeal before this Hon’ble Commission. However, on account of the intervening winter break and the Courts remaining closed during the said period, the office of the counsel for the Appellant was not functional. It was only after the winter break when the office of the counsel for the Appellant resumed work that the Appellant informed its counsel of its decision to pursue the matter by way of a statutory appeal in this Hon’ble Commission. Towards the same, the Appellant forwarded the necessary documents to the office of its counsel. 4. That upon receipt of the documents from the Appellant Company, the office of its counsel studied the matter in detail and started preparing the appeal. However, while preparing the appeal, there were certain queries and clarifications that required explanation by the Appellant Company. The counsel for the Appellant accordingly sent a detailed email dated 13.02.2016 to the Appellant raising the said queries and requesting for necessary clarifications / instructions. 5. Meanwhile, without prior intimation, the concerned officer of the Appellant Company, Mr. Anil Kohli, resigned from his employment with the Appellant company. The email dated 18.02.2016 sent by Mr. Anil Kohli putting to notice of his resignation from service with the Appellant company is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1. 6. However, since the resignation of Mr. Kohli was sudden, the Appellant company was unable to take over the work earlier being handled by Mr. Kohli at such short notice. In these circumstances, the clarifications sought in captioned matter could not be addressed. 7. Despite the fact that the clarifications sought had not been received from the Appellant company, the counsel for the Appellant prepared and forwarded a draft of the appeal to the Appellant company on 02.03.2016. However, as the clarifications sought by the counsel for Appellant required the record maintained at the local office of the Appellant Company at Haryana to be consulted, the office of the Appellant Company at New Delhi had to seek information / instructions from the local office of the Appellant Company at Haryana. 8. It is submitted that around the same time the local office of the Appellant Company at Haryana came under attack in the Jat Agitation and suffered losses and heavy damage during the said Jat Agitations that had engulfed the entire State of Haryana in the month of March and April. The Local office of the Appellant Company was burnt and damaged by certain unscrupulous elements of the society who were resorting to illegal and violent means of protest. It is submitted that due to the said protest not only the local office but the state of Haryana as a whole had become inaccessible and cut off. It is only in the end of April when the said agitations receded and the situation had somewhat returned to normalcy that the Appellant Company took steps towards retrieving lost and damaged documents and reconstructing the local office. A copy of Police Complaints lodged by and on behalf of Appellant Company is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-2. 9. That meanwhile the concerned associate dealing with the captioned matter, Ms. Agniva Ghosh, quit the office of the counsel for the Appellants due to certain personal emergency. Therefore, the matter could not be pursued effectively. 10. It is submitted that it was in the afore-mentioned inevitable and irrepressible circumstances and due to no fault on part of the Appellant that the instant appeal could not be prepared and filed in time. 11. That it was only subsequently, when the a new legal manager was hired by the Appellant Company after the Jat Agitations had been put to rest, who then took stock of the pending work of Mr. Anil Kohli and cross checked the draft appeal after retrieving the documents from local office. Due to the voluminous nature of the work that had to be taken over from that being handled by Mr. Kohli, it took some time to the new legal manager appointed by the Appellant Company to take stock of the instant matter. It was thus only in the month of June, 2016 that the said new legal manager of the Appellant Company evaluated the appeal sent by the counsel for the Appellant and with some added comments and clarification to the queries that were raised by the counsel in the draft appeal. 12. However, due to the ensuing summer vacations, the office of the counsel for the Appellant was not functional during the month of June, 2006. It was, therefore, that it took some time to the counsel for the Appellant to revert on the said queries and sent the revised draft appeal for the approval of the Appellant Company. 13. It is submitted that the draft appeal sent by the counsel for the Appellant was evaluated at the end of the Appellant Company and the approved was sent to the office of the counsel for Appellant in the month of July, 2016. It is therefore in these circumstances that the present appeal is being filed with a delay of 190 days. 14. It is submitted that delay of 190 days in filing the instant appeal is therefore inadvertent and deserves to be condoned. 15. It is submitted that the Appellant has a good case prima facie case on merits and is likely to succeed in this matter. It is submitted that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Appellant since no harm will be caused to the Respondent if the present application is allowed whereas the Appellant will suffer grave harm in the event that the instant application is not allowed. PRAYER In view of the aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to: (a) Pass an order condoning the delay of 190 days in filing the present appeal. (paras 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 15 of the application for condonation of delay) 6. In reply thereto the respondents have inter alia submitted as below: 2. The copy of the impugned order shows that the first copy was issued on 20.11.2015. 3-4. While the limitation, even according to appellant, started running on 18.12.2015 and should have expired after 30 days on 18.01.2015, it is sheer ignorance that the appellant did not file the appeal for several months thereafter. The reasons stated in this para that the file was being studied till 13.02.2016 does not satisfy the requirement of reasonableness or sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 5-6. The reason for further delay beyond 13.02.2016 also does not satisfy the test of reasonableness. All the pleadings have been made under the signature of Mr. Rajat Nagpal, the AR of appellant builder before the State commission, who swear the affidavit that he is conversant with all the facts and circumstances. There is no averment that Mr. Rajpal has left the job. 7. The facts introduced in this para also do not sound reasonable. The Haryana office of appellant is not at such a distanced placed that it would take months to communicate it with Delhi Office. There is hardly a distance of 45-50 kms between two offices. The said delay is nothing but a result of red tapism in private sector, which can not be condoned. 8. The further trail of already delayed appeal also does not satisfy the test of reasonableness. The letter annexed as annexure A-II is only a mercy petition for waiving the electricity charges and not a proof of averment made by appellant. The said letter categorically mentions the damage to have occurred at various shops at TDI mall kundli. The incident of agitation does not pertains to the entire months of March and April as alleged by the appellant. In the case of appellant the agitation took place on 21.02.2016. The police complaint does not mention any such damage to the office of the appellant. 9-10. Yet another employee leaves is yet another excuse extended by the appellant and is also liable to be rejected in view of trail of indefensible reasons given by the appellant out of which not even one satisfies the test of reasonableness. 11. After 5 independent incidents of delay already quoted, the sixth reason i.e is the appointment of new legal manager, his taking over of the work and then evaluation of appeal by him, is prima facie fake and liable to be rejected. It rather shows the ignorance and callousness on the part of appellant. It has not been substantiated anywhere as to how much time was required by the new legal manager to take over the file and to evaluate the draft petition. The two months consumed in this particular process is not at all condonable. 12-13. The 7th stage of delay is again does not satisfy the test of reasonableness. The exchange of draft Petition between the advocate and the client is taking 2 months that too in a case where maximum permissible period for filing is 1 month and the same has expired long back. 14-15. The averments made in these para are wrong. The delay is not inadvertent and the same is rather intentional and at best out of sheer ignorance and gross negligence which can not be condoned. There exist catena of Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Commission on the test of reasonableness and sufficient case, none of which is satisfied in the present case and the same is liable to be rejected on this ground. It is therefore prayed that the application for condonation of a long and unexplained delay of 190 days as also the appeal of the applicant appellant builder be dismissed with exemplary costs. (paras 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 15 of the reply to application for condonation of delay) 7. This bench notes that the stated reasons for delay professed by the appellant – builder co. have been rebutted cogently and convincingly by the respondent – complainant. 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 190 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. 21,03,750/-), with interest (@ 12% p.a.), compensation (Rs. 5,00,000/-), and cost of litigation (Rs. 1,00,000/-). It is noted that the said amount of Rs. 21,03,750/- (against total cost of Rs. 26,81,250/-) was deposited by the complainant with the builder co. between 2006 and 2011; the builder co. cancelled allotment of the subject flat vide its letter dated 08.02.2011; it did not refund the deposited amount, with or without deduction/s, to the complainant; a letter for clearing ‘outstanding amount for allotment of flat’ dated nil was issued by the builder co. to the complainant, raising a further demand of Rs. 17,34,511/- (i.e. substantially in excess of the total cost), to be deposited on or before 07.08.2011 (i.e. after the cancellation of allotment on 08.02.2011); the complaint was filed with the State Commission in 2011; the decision of the State Commission was pronounced on 09.10.2015; this first appeal was filed in this Commission on 26.07.2016; no refund, with or without deduction/s, has been made by the builder co. to the complainant till today (i.e. till 14.03.2019, the date of arguments). The State Commission in its impugned Order dated 09.10.2015 has inter alia observed: 3) Defence raised by the OP is that due to continuous default on the part of the complainant, the allotment in the name of the complainant was cancelled. OP further submitted that one Sh. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia was allotted the said flat after the said cancellation. (para 3 of the State Commission’s Order) On 18.07.2018 the following was inter alia directed by this Commission: Dated : 18th July 2018 ORDER The Chief Executive Officer of the appellant company shall file with this Commission copies certified at his level of the complete record (including all correspondence and file notings) relating to the transaction between the appellant company and the respondent through counsel within four weeks. On 03.10.2018, the matter was adjourned to 06.02.2019 due to paucity of time. On 06.02.2019, the matter was adjourned to 21.02.2019 at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. On 21.02.2019, the matter was adjourned to 14.03.2019 (today) at the request of learned proxy counsel for the appellant. Compliance of the directions contained in this Commission’s Order dated 18.07.2018 (quoted above) has not been made till today i.e. till 14.03.2019 even though it had to be made within four weeks of 18.07.2018. Failure and omission to comply with this Commission’s Order is not viewed favourably. 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. The bench may add that during the course of arguments on the application for condonation of delay, learned counsel for the builder co. also inter alia made submissions that the requisite compliance of this Commission’s Order of 18.07.2018 is being / would be made today i.e. on 14.03.2019. This bench however does not find any need to provide, and did not provide, further opportunity to comply with its Order of 18.07.2018. It has dismissed this case on limitation. And, as already stated above, failure and omission to comply within the stipulated time with this Commission’s Order of 18.07.2018 is not viewed favourably. 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. | 
