Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                None is present for the Applicants/Appellants as well as for the Non-Applicants/Respondents.

(2)                The complaint was filed by the Applicants/Appellants against M/s.Ayyappa Construction Company, the builder/developer.  At the stage of admission itself the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the Complainants were the purchasers of flat from Smt.Asha Ravilal Patel, who had purchased the flat from Opponent builder developer. So, purchase of flat by the Complainant from Smt.Asha Ravilal Patel was at the instance of second sale and therefore, this is a dispute of resale.  The Complainant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and on this ground alone the complaint was not maintainable and should have been rejected at the stage of admission.  So, we find that there is no substance in the appeal filed by the original Complainant.

(3)                Moreover, there is delay of 150 days in filing the appeal.  We hold that the condonation of delay is not properly explained.  Hence, we are not inclined to issue notice to the Non-Applicant/Respondent.  In any view of the matter since delay is not properly explained and since even on merit the appeal is not tenable in law, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

    (i)            Misc.Application No.671/2010 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.

  (ii)            Even on merit there is no substance in the appeal.  Hence, it is dismissed.

(iii)            Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 26^th June, 2012.