IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.05.2025 HARI RAM GUPTA AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners Versus M/S ALPHA GROUP CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

* * * *

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have challenged the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘National Commission’) dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-23) whereby two separate appeals preferred by the petitioners against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) dated 19.04.2023 (Annexures P-17 & P-18) have been dismissed on account of delay of 258 days in preferring the appeals.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consumer complaints preferred by the petitioners have been allowed by the State Commission on account of deficiency in services of respondents No.1 to 3. The State Commission had directed respondents No.1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.42,97,500/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.39,88,080/- to petitioner No.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum, which was to be paid within a period of 45 days. However, in the event of delay, interest @ 12% per annum had been ordered to be paid. He also submits that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the respondents were charging interest @ 15% per annum on account of delay in payment by the petitioners and, therefore, the amount paid by the petitioners ought to be refunded along with interest @ 15% per annum. He further submits that sufficient cause had been shown for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and the delay ought to have been condoned by the National Commission.

3. Heard.

4. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are stated to have booked residential plots each measuring 209.025 sq.mtr. with respondent No.1. The allotment of the plots had not been made to the petitioners within 28 months, which compelled them to prefer two separate consumer complaints before the State Commission. The State Commission on 19.04.2023 had allowed both the consumer complaints preferred by the petitioners (Annexures P-17 and P-18, respectively) due to deficiency of services on the part of respondents No.1 to 3 and had directed a refund of Rs.42,97,500/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.39,88,080/- to petitioner No.2 along with interest @ 9% per annum payable within a period of 45 days and in the event of delay in making the payment, the interest @ 12% per annum was ordered to be paid by respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 aggrieved by this order of the State Commission had promptly filed two separate appeals before the National Commission in 2023, however, the appeals by the petitioners against the order of the State Commission dated 19.04.2023 had been filed only in February, 2024.

5. It is manifest that there was a delay of 258 days in preferring the appeals by the petitioners. The explanation put forth by the petitioners for condonation of delay indicates that the appeals had been preferred by the petitioners as an afterthought as they were under the apprehension that respondents No.1 to 3 may sell the plot to a third party. The reasons as set out by the petitioners in the applications for condonation of delay, which have also been recorded by the National Commission in its final order dated

26.12.2024 (Annexure P-23), are reproduced hereinbelow:

“Xxxxx xxxxx

26. We have examined these facts and we find that the appeals subsequently filed by the complainants seem to be motivated. What is more evident is that there is a reported delay of 258 days in filing of the appeals. The reason for explaining the delay is strikingly peculiar and paragraphs 4 and 5 of the delay condonation application needs mentioned, which are extracted herein under:

4. That during the pendency of the first appeal