IMPORTANT POINT
Indefinite or unreasonable delay cannot continue ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member—This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 20.10.2016 in C.C. No. 72 of 2013 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.

The Appellant herein, M/s ORS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was the Opposite Party before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Builder Co.’.

The Respondent herein, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Builder Co. on admission.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 20.10.2016 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.

3. This Appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 349 days. A mere perusal of the application for condonation of delay shows that the reasons stated therein point towards managerial inefficiency and perfunctory and causal attitude to the law of limitation, they are illogical and unpersuasive in explaining convincingly and cogently the delay in filing the Appeal.

Sufficient cause to explain the delay is not forthcoming.

However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Builder Co., to settle the matter on merit, the delay is condoned.

4. On merit, the Complainant’s case before the State Commission was that he booked a residential unit with the Builder Co. for Rs. 27,45,000/-. An Agreement between the Builder Co. and the Complainant was executed on 21.11.2008. Between 2008 to 2013, the Complainant paid Rs. 23,61,910/- to the Builder Co. (as reflected in the Builder Co.’s letter dated 13.05.2013). Possession was not offered within the agreed and assured period, which elapsed in 2011. The Project was nowhere nearing completion.

5. The Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 72 of 2013 before the State Commission in 2013.

The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 20.10.2016 allowed the Complaint.

The Award made by the State Commission is reproduced below:

4. From the perusal of statement of account dated 26.07.2012 it is clear that the complainant has made payment promptly. O.P. has miserably failed to show that there was any default on the part of the complainant. As per flat buyers agreement it was construction linked plan. Though O.P. did not start construction, but, even then complainant made payments. It clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Hence the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to refund the amount already deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till refund. In addition thereto, complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental harassment etc. and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. (emphasis supplied)

6. It is noted that [a] as per the Builder Co.’s own record, Rs. 23,61,910/- were paid to the Builder Co. by the Complainant till 13.05.2013; [b] possession was not offered within the agreed and assured period, or within a reasonable period thence (reasonable period here would connote such period as a reasonable man would not normally agitate); [c] there is nothing on record to show that the Complainant was not ready and willing to deposit the balance consideration amount, if any, with or without interest / penal interest, if any, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

7. The State Commission has observed in para 1 of its Order that “the possession was to be delivered within 36 months but till today even construction is not started by O.P.”.

It has observed in para 4 of its Order that “From the perusal of statement of account dated 26.07.2012 it is clear that the complainant has made payment promptly. O.P. has miserably failed to show that there was any default on the part of the complainant. As per flat buyers agreement it was construction linked