1.       Challenge in these two First Appeals, under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by a Real Estate Developer, namely, Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, is to a common order dated 27.06.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint Cases No. 9 and 10 of 2016.  By the impugned order, while partly accepting the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants in these Appeals, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to refund to the Complainants sums of ₹21,64,472/- and ₹29,44,977/- respectively deposited by them with the Appellant, along with interest @ 12% p.a. for the periods mentioned in the impugned order, besides paying compensation of ₹50,000/- to each set of the Complainants, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order, with a default stipulation of interest @ 15% p.a. and 12% p.a. on the amounts of refund and compensation respectively. 

2.       Since the afore-noted Complaints, involving more or less similar facts; common issues; and the same Opposite Parties, have been disposed of by the State Commission by a common order, the present Appeals, arising out of the said Complaints, are also being disposed of by this common order.  However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 1437 of 2016 is treated as the lead case and the facts referred to hereinafter are also taken from the said Appeal, which would govern both the Appeals.

3.       The Complainants had applied for a residential plot for their personal use in the project, christened as “IREO HAMLET”, launched by the Appellant in Sector-98, SAS Nagar, Mohali.  The total cost of the said plot was ₹67,65,930/-.  Between the period 27.06.2011 and 01.03.2014 the Complainants had deposited a total sum of ₹28,94,318/- with the Appellant.  On 27.06.2011 a provisional allotment letter, allotting residential plot no. 168, admeasuring 250.59 sq. yards, was issued by the Appellant in favour of the Complainants.  On 17.09.2011, the Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also entered into between the parties.  The possession of the plot was required to be handed over to the Complainants after 42 months of the said Agreement.  Subsequently, when the Complainants enquired about the progress in development at the site and handing over of the possession of the plot in question, no satisfactory reply was furnished by the Appellant.  The Complainants visited the site in December, 2014/April, 2015 and found that there was no development.  Despite repeated requests, the Appellants failed to hand over possession of the plot in question to the Complainants.   In such a situation, the Complainants requested the Appellants to either hand over the possession of the plot or refund the amount deposited by them with interest @ 24% p.a. but in vain.  Consequently, the afore-noted Complaint(s) came to be filed before the State Commission, wherein the Complainants had prayed for a direction to the Appellant to refund to them the amount deposited by them with interest @ 24% p.a.  The Complainants had also prayed for compensation of ₹10,00,000/- and litigation costs of ₹1,00,000/-.

4.       Upon notice, the Appellant contested the Complaint(s) by filing its Written Version.

5.       On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the State Commission, as noted above, partly allowed the Complaints and issued the aforesaid directions to the Appellant.  Hence, the present Appeals.

6.       It is pointed out by the office that the Appeals are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 93 days in filing the same.  Identical Applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, have been filed along with the Appeals.  In paragraphs 2 – 5 of the same, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation:

“2.     That the impugned order was passed on 27.06.2016.  A certified copy of the same was delivered to the Appellant on 09.07.2016, through registered post.  That being so, after expiry of the statutory period of 30 days on 08.08.2016, there is a delay of 93 days in filing of this Appeal.

3.       That since May, 2016, the Applicant/Appellant has filed 35 First Appeals, out of which 24 First Appeals have been filed pertaining to the same project, namely, IREO Hamlet at SAS Nagar, Mohali, by 04.07.2016 and another 11 First Appeals have been filed thereafter, along with numerous IAs therein.  It is pertinent to mention herein that the Impugned Orders in these First Appeals were being received day after day, the limitation period for filing the First Appeals, challenging the said Orders was running parallelly.   

4.       That voluminous documents were involved in preparation of the said appeals, including the appeal in which the present application is being filed.  The appellant had to arrange all its files from its counsel in Chandigarh, for appropriate instructions to its counsel at Delhi.

5.       That once the Appellant Company organized its papers, it handed over the certified copies of orders, against which the present appeal was to be preferred, to its counsel at Delhi in the last week of July, 2016.  However, due to various appeals being prepared in the office of the counsel for the Appellant, the files pertaining the present Appeal got misplaced in the office of the counsel and the same could be traced only on 4.11.2016.”

7.       We are not at all satisfied with the explanation.  Admittedly, after the receipt of certified copy of the impugned order by the Appellant on 09.07.2016, there is inordinate delay of 93 days, over and above the stipulated statutory period of 30 days under Section 19 of the Act, in filing the Appeals.  The said delay is sought to be explained with reference to the standard explanation, viz. voluminous documents were required to be prepared for the purpose and the files pertaining to the present Appeals got misplaced in the office of the Counsel, which were traced only on 04.11.2016. While the plea of misplacement of the files does not inspire any confidence, the requirement of preparing voluminous documents for filing in a case has otherwise no relevance insofar as the limitation period, stipulated for filing the said case, is concerned.  It is trite that the provision regarding the period of limitation has to be construed strictly.  We have no hesitation in holding that the explanation is an afterthought, concocted to protract the matter to gain time to refund the money received from the Complainants long time back, and does not make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay of 93 days in filing the present Appeals.  Further, in the event of the said unexplained delay being condoned and the Appeals entertained, the Complainants, who, despite having parted with a huge sums of money right from June, 2011, with the fond hope of getting a plot for their personal use, have neither got the possession of the plot nor the refund of the amount deposited, would be put to further harassment and financial loss.      

8.       In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we have also kept 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.                 

9.       Consequently, the Appeals are dismissed on the short ground of limitation.  

10.     The statutory deposit made at the time of filing of the Appeals shall stand transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund by way of a Bank Draft drawn in favour of PAO, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi.