Strict construction of the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

M. Shreesha, J. - Challenge in this First Appeal, by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is to the order dated 07. 07. 2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 249 of 2011. By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Appellants herein, in not completing the construction and handing over possession of the residential flat booked by him, the State Commission has directed the Appellants to refund to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 46,28,933/-, along with interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization, and pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, and mental agony caused to the Complainant, and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges. The said amounts were directed to be paid to the Complainant within 60 days, failing which the said amounts were to carry interest @ 18% p. a. after the expiry of the said period.

2. It is pointed out by the office that the Appeal is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of 134 days in filing the same. For condonation thereof, an Application has been filed along with the Appeal. In paragraphs 4 7 of the same, the Appellants have furnished the following explanation:

"4. The Appellant received the certified copy of Impugned Order on 10. 07. 2017.

5. The Appellant No. 1 upon receipt of Impugned Order, in order to discuss the case internally forwarded the copy of order to its advocate in the fourth week of July, 2017 for seeking an opinion for filing an Appeal.

6. That the Appellant's Counsel at the Hon'ble National Commission asked for complete sets of documents related to the matter from the legal cell of the Appellant Company, which could not be traced in the record room of the Appellant No. 1 due to shifting of the record room. As such the document could only be made available to the counsel in the second week of September, 2017.

7. Thereafter, the counsel for the Appellant No. 1 drafted the appeal and circulated the same in the second week of October, 2017 and same was approved by the legal cell of the Appellant Company only in the third week of (sic) 2017. The signed copy of Appeal and Application were received by the Appellant's Counsel only in the third week of December, 2017. Thereafter, the captioned Appeal is being filed with a delay of 130 days. "

3. Though the Appellants had admittedly received the certified copy of the impugned order on 10. 07. 2017, they took a fortnight in forwarding the same to their Counsel, in the fourth week of July, 2017. Thereafter, the Appellants took one and a half months in furnishing the necessary documents, sought for by their Counsel. This delay is sought to be explained on the ground that due to shifting of their record room, the documents were not traceable. In the absence of any supporting material, the said bald plea does not inspire any confidence. Though at that stage, the limitation period provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing an Appeal in the matter was already over, yet Appellants' Counsel took almost one month in preparing the draft Appeal and sending the same to the Appellants in the second week of October, 2017. Even at that stage the Appellants did not show any urgency in the matter and took two months in returning the Appeal to be filed before this Commission to the Counsel. The Counsel ultimately filed the Appeal before this Commission only on 21. 12. 2017, with the afore-stated delay.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, (2011) 14 SCC 578 has observed 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