IMPORTANT POINT
No relief can be admissible on a time barred appeal.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member — The opposite parties (OPs) M/s. Sahara City Homes (Sahara Prime City Ltd.) and Ors. have filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 10.07.2005, passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 97/2014, Mohd. Najam Khan & Anr. Vs. Sahara City Homes (Sahara Prime City Ltd.) & Ors., filed by the present respondents, vide which, the said complaint was allowed and the appellants were directed to hand over the possession of the flat in question, after obtaining the balance amount payable from the complainants. It was also stated that if the said flat had not been completed, then some other flat of same value and size should be allotted to the complainants.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant no. 1, Mohd. Nazab Khan, who is a handicapped person and the complainant no. 2, Smt. Shagoofa Naaz booked a three bedroom apartment with the OPs and they were allotted unit no. C-25/105, first floor, having an area of 158.41 sq. mtr. at a total cost of Rs. 45,70,000/- at Sahara City Homes, Lucknow. It has been stated that the complainants were in need of the said apartment at Lucknow, because complainant no. 1 wanted to go for physiotherapy treatment near that place. The net sale value of the said flat after discount, was fixed at Rs. 31,99,000/- and an amount of Rs. 28,85,000/- was deposited with the OPs, but the possession of the said flat was not given to them, despite the assurance that the said unit shall be delivered in March, 2013. Despite making requests through letters as well as verbally, neither the physical possession was delivered nor the money was refunded to the complainants. The complainants visited the construction site, when it was revealed that the construction activity was on halt and the persons available there told the complainants that the apartments were likely to be completed by 2015. The partial construction work done by the OPs was also found to be defective and sub-standard. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to provide physical possession of the allotted flat and also to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount deposited by them and in addition, compensate them for deficiency in service etc. and to pay litigation cost.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written statement before the State Commission, in which they denied the allegations against them, but admitted that booking was done in favour of the complainants on 21.05.2012 and the amount fixed for the flat was Rs. 31,99,000/- after giving discount of 30% for the special category. The OPs stated that as on 28.02.2014, an amount of Rs. 24,29,297/- alongwith Rs. 63,059/- as interest had been received from the complainants. A ‘No Objection Certificate’ had also been issued to the complainants for sanction of loan from UCO Bank on 10.07.2013. Regarding the request of the complainants for cancellation of the booking, they were intimated that cancellation could be done only if a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was received from the Bank. The OPs further stated that the construction was being carried out only after procuring all due payments. They also took the plea that in such constructions relating to buildings, flats etc., time is not the essence of contract. The OPs requested that the complaint against them should be dismissed.

4. Vide impugned order, the State Commission partly allowed the said complaint and gave directions that within two months of the said order, the balance payable amount in respect of the cost of the flat and registration charges etc. without any penal interest should be paid by the complainants to the OPs. The OPs/appellants were directed to hand over the possession of the flat in question and it was also stated that if the flat was not completed then another flat of the same value and size should be given to the complai