1.      This instant appeal has been preferred by Delhi Development Authority/appellant-OP under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 31.8.2015 passed in complaint case No. 46 of 2013 by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission’) wherein the complaint was allowed and the appellant/OP was directed to refund Rs.31,00,856/- alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of deposit till its refund.

2.      The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant is a Society for Consumer and Investor’ Protection (SCIP), a group of eminent professionals from different areas.  Complainant No. 2-M/s Allwell Capital Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company.  In August, 2003, the Appellant/OP announced a scheme for conversion from leasehold plots to freehold plots.  The complainant No. 2, the owner of plot, applied for conversion of property and submitted the relevant documents.  On 31.1.2011, OP sent a demand letter for Rs.31,34,949/- towards conversion charges, which includes Rs.31,00,865/- towards “Balance Conversion Charges”.  The said amount was paid by the complainant No. 2 on 9.2.2011.  The complainant No. 2 sought RTI information regarding the basis on which the OP made existing demands.  The reply of RTI revealed that excess amount was charged by OP, therefore, complainant No. 2 filed a complaint on 31.1.2013 to refund the amount of Rs.31,00,865/- alongwith interest, also Rs. 5 lakhs for deficiency in service on account of unwarranted delay, harassment and mental agony and costs of Rs.25,000/-.

3.      The OP filed a written statement after a delay of 500 days.  The OP submitted that the complaint became infructuous as the OP on 5.12.014 has already written a letter to the complainant No. 2 informing that the matter regarding Development CONTROL Norms of Jhandewalan Extension was under consideration, which will take time to finalise and also informed that they can apply for refund of conversion charges i.e. charges of above actual or permissible FAR, which will be paid alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of deposit.  

4.      On the basis of evidence, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund Rs.31,00,856/- to complainant No. 2 alongwith interest @9% per annum.  Being aggrieved, the OP filed this instant appeal.

5.      Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

6.      There is a delay of 339 days in filing this appeal.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay was not intentional. She brought my attention to the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.  The reasons for delay are explained in paras 2 and 3, which are reproduced as under:-

“2.That the petitioner was under impression that it will be filed as Revision Petition and not First Appeal.  However, the registry of the Commission clarified that it would be filed as the appeal and not revision petition.

3. That the matter involved checks at various levels at the office of the petitioner which was a time taking process and hence the delay in filing the appeal.”

7.      The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the case is good on merits, therefore, the delay should be condoned and the matter is to be decided on merits.  Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the appellant/OP filed a written version before the State Commission after delay of 500 days.  Even the OP filed the instant appeal after delay of 339 days.  Therefore, it is clear about the lackadaisical functioning of the OP.  In the instant case, the State Commission categorically observed that OP had accepted for the refund of Rs.31,00,865/- but the only dispute left was for the rate of interest.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant was not pressing other prayers viz. Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs.25,000/-.  The OP has already agreed for refund of amount with interest @7% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.  OP vide letter dated 5.3.2014 offered refund with 7%, which is reproduced as below:

“With reference to above it is informed that the matter regarding Development Control Norms of Jhandewalan Extn. Is under consideration and their finalization may take some time.  In between, if so desired you can apply for refund of conversion charges i.e. charge above the actual/permissible FAR which will be paid along with interest @7% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.”

8.      After giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsel, the dispute is about the rate of interest.  The OP had already accepted for the refund of amount with interest @ 7% per annum.    But it is clear that the functioning of DDA was negligent and in irresponsible manner, who was not serious about the complaint.  OP filed a written version at very belated stage i.e. after 500 days and furthermore, the instant appeal also has been filed after a delay of more than 339 days.  Even, the reasons stated by OP for condonation of delay are not convincing.  It is quite surprising to note that the appellant was under impression whether it was to be filed as a revision or first appeal.  Delhi Development Authority is organization having legal department, but took the matter casually and suffered fatal delay.  Such huge delay shall not be condoned.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble this Commission have categorically observed in several judgments that the delay shall be explained properly on day to day basis.

9.    In the recent case of Sanjay Sidgonda Patil vs. Branch Manager, National Insu. Co. Ltd. & Anr., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.  37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, confirmed the order of the National Commission and refused to condone the delay of 13 days.    Likewise, delay of 78 days was not condoned by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian in SLP No. 19896 of 2013 decided on 12.7.2013.  Again delay of 77 days was not condoned in case of  Chief Off. Nagpur Hous. & Area Dev. Boa & Anr. vs. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, SLP No. 33792 of 2013 decided on 19.11.2013.   Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to condone the delay in following cases:  

1.  Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development  Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC). 

2.  R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)=

3.  Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361

4.  Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977

5.  Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC).

10.    On the basis of foregoing discussion, I do not find any error apparent in the well reasoned order of the State Commission.  The appeal is hereby dismissed.  Therefore, it is ordered that the OP shall comply the order of the State Commission within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry further interest @ 12% per annum till its realization.