ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC") dated 13 February 2015 in Revision Petition 3756 of 2009. 3. On 22 October 2001, the Estate Officer, HUDA allotted Plot No.2992-P in Sector 15, Panchkula admeasuring 209 sq. m. to Jagir Singh. On 6 December 2001, the original allottee applied for transfer of the plot to the respondents. This permisson having been granted, the plot was re-allotted on 28 October 2002 in favour of the respondents. A letter of possession was issued on 8 April 2003 and actual physical possession was handed over to the respondents on 2 December 2003. 4. On 15 November 2006, the respondents filed a complaint complaining of a deficiency of service before the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula. Essentially, the grievance of the respondents was that though they had been given possession of the allotted plot, it was surrounded by two transformers with six poles besides which there were two more electrical poles embedded in the area of the plot. 5. By its order dated 9 August 2007, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint with the following directions: "7. In the result, the instant complaint is hereby allowed and the Ops are hereby directed: a. To get the electric pole and web of electronic wires removed in and around the plot of the complainant. b. Also pay to the complainants interest " compensation at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount deposited w.e.f. 16.1.2002 till removal of the electric poles as per direction above. c. Further not to charge any interest or penalty for delayed payment of instalment till the removal of electric poles as directed (a) above. d. Also pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost of proceedings." 6. The appellants filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("SCDRC"), being First Appeal 290 of 2008. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to inspect and verify the position at the site of the plot. The report of the Advocate-Commissioner indicated that construction was being carried out on the plot by the respondents and a structure comprising of the ground floor and first floor had been constructed. 7. The SCDRC found that the poles had been removed from the plot and there was no hindrance in the construction thereof. The report of the Advocate-Commissioner indicated that construction was being carried out on the plot by the respondents and a structure comprising of the ground floor and first floor had been constructed. 7. The SCDRC found that the poles had been removed from the plot and there was no hindrance in the construction thereof. The SCDRC was of the view that the directions contained in paragraph 7 (b) and 7(c) for payment of compensation at 10% per annum from 16 January 2002 and restraining HUDA from charging interest or penalty for delayed payment were liable to be set aside. However, the SCDRC observed that there was a delay of 134 days in filing the appeal. Holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the appeal was dismissed. 8. In revision, the NCDRC, by its order dated 13 February 2015, affirmed the view of the SCDRC on the ground that there was no cause shown to condone the delay. The NCDRC observed that once the appeal was rejected by the SCDRC on the ground of delay, it was not necessary or appropriate to render a finding on the issue as to whether the electric poles had impeded the construction. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 10. On perusing the record, we are of the view that the SCDRC took an unduly technical view of the matter in declining to condone the delay of 134 days. As a matter of fact, as the order indicates, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed during the pendency of the proceedings to verify the genuineness of the claim of the allottee that there was a hindrance in construction. The SCDRC noted that the report of the Advocate-Commissioner showed that the construction was in fact carried out and had proceeded to the stage of the first floor. The electric poles had also been removed. 11. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, including the cause shown for delay, we are of the view that the delay should have been condoned subject to an award of costs. We are further of the view that an award of costs in the amount of Rs 10,000 to the respondents would have subserved the ends of justice. 11. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, including the cause shown for delay, we are of the view that the delay should have been condoned subject to an award of costs. We are further of the view that an award of costs in the amount of Rs 10,000 to the respondents would have subserved the ends of justice. We direct that the costs be paid over to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. The order of the SCDRC holding that no sufficient cause was shown, as well as the impugned order of the NCDRC rejecting the revision filed by the appellants will have to be set aside. We order accordingly. 12. Ordinarily, we would have remitted the matter back to the SCDRC for disposal of the appeal on merits. However, this would be unnecessary at the present stage having due regard to the events which have transpired during the pendency of the appeal before the SCDRC. As we have observed above, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed. The report of the Advocate-Commissioner caregorically indicated that construction had started apace and there was no hindrance existing at the site. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the electric poles were removed after the order of the District Consumer Forum which was rendered on 9 August 2007. An important feature which has emerged, is that the complaint before the District Consumer Forum was instituted by the allottees only on 15 November 2006. The transfer to the respondents as subsequent transferees was completed when the plot was re-allotted on 28 October 2002 in their favour. The letter of possession was issued on 8 April 2003 and actual possession was handed over on 2 December 2003. The fact that the respondents did not move a complaint until 15 November 2006 is a clear indicator that the grievance which was sought to be urged of their inability to construct on the site due to the presence of the electric poles was an after-thought. 13. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the directions which were issued by the District Consumer Forum were clearly unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the NCDRC affirming the order of the SCDRC. In consequence, the complaint filed by the respondents before the District Consumer Forum shall stand dismissed. 13. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the directions which were issued by the District Consumer Forum were clearly unsustainable. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the NCDRC affirming the order of the SCDRC. In consequence, the complaint filed by the respondents before the District Consumer Forum shall stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.