IMPORTANT POINT
Delay cannot be explained with reference to merits of appeal.

D.K. Jain, President—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) Rs.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) Rs.1,00,000/- for the inconvenience caused; (iii) Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony; and (iv) Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

2. 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 Rs.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 Rs.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 Rs.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.

3. 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 Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of delay in delivery of possession of the house or to pay to him an amount of Rs.25,56,366/- with interest @ 12% per annum as also Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience caused, Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

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

5. It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, as there is a delay of 103 d