Decided on February 14,2013

Chandan Shanti Group Of Companies Appellant
Abbas Mohammadali Koita Respondents


- (1.)HEARD Mr.A.R. Gole, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
(2.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17/11/2009 passed in consumer complaint No.35/2009 by District Forum, Thane. The impugned order has directed the applicant/appellant to provide water supply, electricity, internal road, street light, etc. as per the agreement. It has been further directed that an interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 1,87,500/ - from June 2005 be paid till possession is delivered. By way of mental harassment Rs. 5,000/ - and Rs. 2,000/ - by way of costs of litigation have been directed to be paid to the complainant/respondent.
(3.)THERE is delay of two years eight months and twenty three days in filing the appeal. Therefore, delay condonation application has been filed. In the delay condonation application, it is stated that applicant/appellant received information of the impugned order when the summons was served in the Execution Application No.76/2011 issued by the District Forum. He further states that he applied for the certified copy and on getting certified copy, appeal has been filed. According to him the matter was decided ex -parte and he had no information and/or not aware of the fact that consumer complaint is pending before the District Forum against the applicant/appellant. On such a statement delay is sought to be condoned.
We are not impressed by the submissions made by the Learned Counsel. It is to be noted that the notice of the proceeding was served on the appellant and in spite of service of notice applicant/appellant did not participate in the proceeding. The matter was pending from January 2009 to November 2009 and there was ample time for the applicant/appellant to appear before the District Forum after service of the notice. It is further to be noted that copy of the said order has been dispatched by office of the District Forum by Dispatch No.2911 on 31/12/2009. Therefore, said copy must have been received in a regular course by the applicant/appellant. The address shown in the complaint and in the appeal memo is one and the same. There is no dispute over the fact that complaint was served. Therefore, it is an act on the part of the opponent/appellant herein not to participate in the proceeding in spite of service of the notice. Therefore, his contention that he was unaware of pendency of the consumer complaint is not acceptable and sustainable in the law in the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that there is an inordinate delay which is not properly explained. There is no sufficient ground to condone the delay as required under the proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Delay condonation application is therefore hereby rejected. In view of rejection of the delay condonation application, appeal stands rejected.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.