IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 655 days in filing appeal held not condoned.

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 29.11.2018 whereby a Consumer Complaint filed against the petitioner was partly allowed by the said Commission. The complainant was allotted a plot of land in Gurgaon on 01.02.2005 at the price of Rs.12,01,200/- and he paid 25% of the price.

The remaining 75% of the price would be paid in installments. The price of the plot was later enhanced by Rs.19,19,892/-. The complainant made a total payment of Rs.43,85,120/- to the appellant in installments. The case of the complainant is that the payments were made by him under protest and that interest could not have been charged on the amount by which the price was enhanced, till the possession was actually delivered to him. He therefore, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint.

The complaint was opposed by the appellant who justified the demand of Rs.19,19,892/- made from the complainant as well as the interest taken from him. On merits, it was stated that the possession was taken by the complainant on 15.06.2017.

2. Vide impugned order dated 29.11.2018, the State Commission directed as under:

12. Whatever the respondents can only charge the interest w.e.f. 18.09.2015 to 15.06.2017 and whatever the excess amount has been charged, because that amount has already been paid. The excess amount of the interest charged and paid by the allottee i.e. Rs.12,64,028/- would be returned to the present complainant within the period of three months alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum because a huge amount has been recovery illegally and utilized by the O.Ps. or nodal agency if the payment is not made within the period of three months, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get interest @ 18% per annum for the defaulting period. The compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for harassment, causing mental and unfair trade practice and the amount of Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P. Act would also be attractable.

3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant HUDA is before this Commission by way of this appeal. Since there is a delay of 655 days (one year nine months and sixteen days), an application seeking condonation of the said delay has also been filed.

4. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

3. That after the judgment was passed, the said order was received through email dated 14-01-2019 from the HSVP counsel Sh. Saurabh Sharma. The Asstt. Distt. Attorney vide letter dated 22-01-2019 addressed to the Accounts Branch and Assistant. Sector-57 directed to put up the order on file alongwith financial implication for obtaining approval from Ld. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram for filing First appeal before this Hon’ble Commission and getting the counsel engaged from Head Quarter.

4. That the Asstt. Distt. Attorney has continuously followed the matter with Accounts Branch and Assistant Sector-57 vide various letters dated 9-10-19, 18-10-19, 8-11-19, 6-01-2020 and 14-01-2020.

5. That on receipt of letter dated 22-01 -2019 of ADA the financial implications amounting to Rs. 16,11,208/- were worked out by the Accounts Branch on 7-02-2019. The case was processed on 8-02-2019 by the dealing official seeking comments of ADA. The ADA opined on 8-02-2019 that the case alongwith complete calculations as per order of SCDRC & HSVP policy may be sent to Ld. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram for obtaining necessary approval for filing appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.

6. That the said report/opinion was put up by the dealing Clerk on 1-04-2019 which was further processed by the dealing Assistant, Dy. Superintendent, & AEO on 4-04-2019 & 10-04-2019 and the case was sent to Ld. Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram seeking permission for filing