ORDER :

Dinesh Singh, Member. - The matter relates to first appeals filed by the appellant - builder co. under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Commission's Orders passed in favour of the respondents - complainants.

1. The matter relates to first appeals filed by the appellant builder co. under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Commissions Orders passed in favour of the respondents complainants.

2. A fair number of first appeals filed by the appellant builder co. are pending before various benches of this Commission, including this bench.

3. Of the ones pending before this bench, two sets, f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 f. a. s and f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and connected 26 f. a. s (total 1 + 21 + 1 + 26 = 49 f. a. s), were taken up on 01.08.2018. Arguments from learned counsels for the appellant builder co. and from some of the learned counsels for the respondents complainants were heard from 3.02 p.m. to 4.37. p.m. i. e. about one and a half hours. Learned counsels for the respondents complainants took about ten minutes. Rest of the about one hour and twenty minutes was taken by the learned counsels for the appellants builder co.

4. The record was perused.

5. Vide this benchs Order dated 01.08.2018 the said 49 f. a. s were dismissed, with reasoned judgment to follow.

6. Review applications (I.A. no.14334 of 2018 in f. a. no. 382 of 2016 and 21 connected f. a. s and I.A. no. 14496 of 2018 in f. a. no. 1576 of 2016 and 26 connected matters) were taken up on 08.08.2018. The review applications were listed in chamber. They were taken up in bench. Learned senior counsel and learned counsels for the appellants builder co. were heard. The review applications were perused.

7. Vide this benchs Order dated 08.08.2018 the review applications were dismissed, with reasons to be included in the reasoned judgement apropos the 49 f. a. s dismissed on 01.08.2018.

8. The 49 f. a. s were dismissed after perusing the record and hearing arguments on the issues at hand. The stage for final hearing on the impugned Orders of the State Commission was not reached. The appellant builder co. was found to be intentionally and wilfully impeding and disrupting the normal proceedings of the bench towards final hearing and final adjudication of the f. a. s. The responsibilities attached with the right to appeal were found to be intentionally and wilfully being violated by the appellant builder co. The f. a. s were dismissed in view of the specificities intentionally and wilfully created by the appellant builder co. in the overall (mis)conduct of its case.

9. For appreciation of the facts in perspective we feel it appropriate to reproduce some salient relevant record before proceeding to examination and reasoned conclusions on the issues at hand.

10. First appeal no. 382 of 2016 and connected 21 first appeals were filed against the State Commissions Order dated 26.10.2015. The operative portion of the impugned Order dated 26.10.2015 of the State Commission is as below:

Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to them, at the hands of the Opposite Party, as also escalation in prices, or not.

It is not disputed that the complainants belong to a middle class family. They have raised loan to purchase the unit, in question, from a bank. They had expectations to settle in the unit, after lapse of 24 months, from the date of execution of the Buyers Agreement i.e. from 14.01.2011. However, their hopes were not fulfilled when possession of the unit, in question, was not offered to them, by the stipulated date. Compelled under the circumstances, they even agreed to extend the period, to get possession, by 12 months, against letter dated 05.06.2013. As per information supplied by Counsel for the Opposite Party, even today construction of the unit is not complete and firm date to hand over possession is not in sight. The Opposite Party has failed to per