ORDER

This appeal under section 19 of the Act 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 04.02.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 178 of 2018.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the development authority (the appellants herein) and for the complainant (the respondent herein) and have perused the record.

3. The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 135 days.

However, in the interest of justice, inter alia having regard to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, in order to decide the matter on merit rather than dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the development authority submits that earlier appeal no. 602 of 2021 was decided by this Commission vide its Order dated 16.11.2022. She provides a copy of the said Order of 16.11.2022, which is being reproduced below for reference:—

Dated: 16.11.2022

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed under section 51(1) of the Act 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 21.07.2020 of the State Commission in complaint no. 996 of 2018.

We have heard the learned counsel for the development authority (the appellants herein) and the complainant in person (the respondent herein). We have also perused the material on record including inter alia the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 21.07.2020 and the memorandum of appeal.

2. The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 391 days.

There is no application for condonation of delay. However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the appellant development authority, to decide the matter on merit rather than dismiss it on the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. As evinces from the material on record, the complainant had applied online on 11.01.2012 for the subject apartment under the category of Defence Personnel. The tentative price of the apartment was Rs.37,00,000/-. The complainant paid 10% thereof i.e. Rs.3,70,000/- with his application through electronic transfer. He was successful in the draw of lots held on 16.03.2012. Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 18.05.2012 was issued by the development authority to the complainant. The LoI stipulated that initial 30% of the tentative price had to be paid by 22.06.2012. The complainant paid the same on 22.06.2012 through electronic transfer.

Two schemes apropos further payment of 65% of the tentative price (i.e. total 95%) were provided for. Plan ‘A’ required that 65% of the tentative price be paid within 60 days of issue of the LoI and it allowed rebate of 5% on the balance amount payable. Plan ‘B’ required that 65% be paid with 12% interest in six half yearly instalments from the date of issue of the LoI i.e. on 18.11.2012, 18.05.2013, 18.11.2013, 18.05.2014, 18.11.2014 and 18.05.2015.

Balance 5% of the tentative price was payable at the time of possession under both Plans.

The complainant opted for Plan ‘A’. He paid a total amount of Rs.33,94,750/- by 09.10.2012, out of which Rs.22,29,561/- was paid by taking loan from a bank and Rs. 11,65,189/- from his own sources including savings from salary and advance from provident fund. The loan was sanctioned by the bank for down payment under Plan ‘A’. The development authority had endorsed / signed the loan agreement between the complainant and the bank. The bank disbursed the loan directly to the development authority. The complainant paid 30% + 65% = 95% of the tentative price (with 5% rebate on 65%) under Plan ‘A’. However the payment of 65% was not made within the stipulated period of 60 days from the issue of the LoI.

Since the payment was made beyond the stipulated period, the development authority did not treat his case under Plan ‘A’ and also did not give him the benefit of rebate for down payment. It treated his case under Plan ‘B’.

The complainant took up the matter with the development authority. He ultimately wrote a letter dated 25.01.2017 for refund of the