NEELAM HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED vs PARAS KUMAR BUNKAR & ANR.

This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by a real estate developer, namely, Neelam Homes Private Limited, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaint, against the order dated 15.10.2015, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 15/01. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while partly accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant, Respondent No.1 herein, has directed the Petitioner to complete the construction of the house and deliver possession of the same to the Complainant within a period of four months, as per the agreement (annexure-2), failing which it has been directed to pay to the Complainant:(i) 25,56,366/- (the amount deposited by the Complainant) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the Complaint, i.e. 20.01.2015, till

realization; (ii) 1,00,000/- for the inconvenience caused; (iii) 1,00,000/- towards mental agony; and (iv) 10,000/- as litigation costs.

The Appellant and Respondent No.2, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, were engaged in the business of selling fully developed plots/flats of 1500 sq. feet each to the prospective buyers on the land owned by Respondent No.2 and developed by the Appellant at Village Amleshwar, Tehsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. The Complainant had entered into two separate agreements, dated 13.05.2011 and 21.05.2011, with Respondent No.2 and the Appellant respectively. As per the said agreements, Plot No.82, admeasuring 1427 sq. ft., situated at Layout No. 2295 in Golden Paradise Wood Island Residential Colony of Respondent No. 2, was allotted to the Complainant; a house on the said plot was to be constructed on an area of 1050 sq. ft. at a total cost of 19,00,000/-; the said amount was to be paid in a construction linked manner; and after completing the construction, the house was to be delivered to the Complainant by 03.04.2012. Since the house was not being constructed as per the plans and the area of the plot was also reduced to 1301/1350 sq. ft. from 1427 sq. ft., as allotted to him, the Complainant vide his two emails dated 08.05.2011 and 31.05.2012 informed the Appellant that the stipulated date for delivery of possession of the house was already over. The Appellant assured the Complainant of its delivery prior to 31.10.2012. As the possession of the house was not delivered even by the said date, on 29.10.2012 the Complainant cancelled the deal and sought refund of the amount paid, pursuant to which the Appellant asked the Complainant to pay a sum of 2,00,000/- if he was interested in getting a furnished house or it would sell the house and out of the proceeds thereof he would be paid a sum of 23,50,000/-. When the Complainant opted for refund of the amount deposited, he was assured that the construction of the house would be completed by November, 2013 and on selling the same he would be paid the amount deposited by him. However, that was not to be.

Consequently, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and Respondent No.2, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission. The Complainant prayed for a direction to the said parties to either deliver possession of the house, in terms of the agreements executed between them, along with a sum of 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of delay in delivery of possession of the house or to pay to him an amount of 25,56,366/- with interest @ 12% per annum as also 1,00,000/- towards inconvenience caused, 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

As noted above, the State Commission, while partly accepting the Complaint, issued the afore-noted directions to the Appellant. Hence, the present Appeal.

It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 103 days in filing the same. An application praying for condonation of the said delay has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraph no.2 of the same, the Appellant has furnished the following explanation: "2. That after receiving the copy of the order of learned state commission the OP No. 1 as per the direction of the Hon''ble Commission has talked with the complainant and complainant has assured that he will pay the balance amount and the payment of extra construction as the construction was already completed and some work which was suggested by the complainant was also done but the complainant even after the several request has not paid the amount, it was intentionally done by the complainant so that the OP could not file the appeal. The OP No.1 when

saw the intention of the complainant that he is intentionally playing the delay tactics then he wrote the letter to the complainant regarding taking the possession of the house by paying the balance amount. But the complainant was not interested. The OP No.1/appellant is filing the appeal on merits which is delayed by 80 days from the date of receiving the copy of the order."

In our view, the explanation furnished by the Appellant is wholly unsatisfactory. Though the Appellant has stated that there is a delay of 80 days in filing the Appeal but actually it is much more. The free certified copy of the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 was handed over to the Appellant on the very same date and going by the same, the Appeal, required to be filed within a period of 30 days under Section 19 of the Act, has been filed with a delay of 103 days and not 80 days, as is pleaded by the Appellant. As is apparent from the afore-extracted explanation, the delay is sought to be explained with reference to the merits of the Appeal. No reason for the delay in filing of the Appeal is stated. We are convinced that the Appellant has nothing to say as regards delay and is only interested in protracting the matter on one pretext or the other. If the Appellant was really interested in challenging the impugned order, whereby certain directions were issued to it, it would have been on its toes to ensure that the Appeal was filed within time, more so when the free certified copy of the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 had been furnished to it on the very same date.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that apart from the fact that the Application is not bonafide, the Appellant has failed to make out any cause, much less a "sufficient cause" for condonation of inordinate delay of 103 days in filing of the present Appeal and in the event the said unexplained delay is condoned and the Appeal is entertained, the Complainant, who had entered into agreements with the Appellant and Respondent No.2 for purchase of a house as far back as in May, 2011, and had been granted relief by the State Commission, is still not able to either get the possession of the house or the amount deposited/spent, would be put to further harassment.

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.

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