ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. It was the petitioner who was opposite party before the District Forum. Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing its appeal as it was barred by 61 days delay. State Commission has given cogent reasons as to why it could not condone the delay as there was no sufficient cause for the purpose. Before us same arguments were repeated that the delay occurred on account of administrative procedure. To what extent this argument can prevail we are unable to say. It must, however, be not forgotten that it is the complainant-consumer who is involved in litigation at the hands of the petitioner, an arm of the State. When the appeal was not filed within 30 days of the order of the District Forum, complainant rightly assumed that the order has been accepted by the opposite party. That was not to be so. It look 91 days in all for the opposite party to file appeal before the State Commission when limitation prescribed is only 30 days. We do not find any error in the order of the State Commission for us to take a different view. However, on merit also we do not find petitioner-opposite party has any case. In the complaint it was the claim of that the complainant that though he was allotted plot of land in 1985 actual physical possession was given to him only on 16.9.94. He made various claims for this delayed possession. District forum awarded him the following claims:
(i) Rs. 500/- cost of litigation;
(ii) Rs. 10,000/- for mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant on account of delayed possession;
(iii) exemption for payment of any extension fee for late construction till for the period of three years after the delivery of the actual physical possession to the complainant;
(iv) Rs. 1.00 lakh towards escalation cost of construction (it may here be noted that District Forum did not grant any interest through National Commission has been awarding interest @ 18% per annum by way of compensation on account of delayed possession);
(v) penalty of Rs. 7,334/- imposed by the petitioner-opposite party was waived of; and
(vi) interest on delayed payment of instalments to be charged only after 16.9.94 when actual physical possession was given and not earlier to that.
2. The order of the District Forum granting aforesaid reliefs is just and calls for no interference. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.