(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) These two applications stood disposed off by this common order since they arise from the sister appeals filed against impugned order dated 17/03/2011 passed by Addl.Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra, Mumbai (‘the forum’ in short).
(2) Appeal No.A/11/464 is filed by the original complainant-Jaspinder Singh Padam not satisfied with the relief granted in his favour by an order dated 17/03/2011 in the consumer complaint No.277/07, Shri Jaspinder Singh Padam Vs. M/s.Kanakia Properties Pvt.Ltd. & ors., passed by the forum. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal and the application bearing No.MA/11/399 is made to get condone the delay.
(3) Appeal No.A/12/319 is filed by the original opponent No.1 & 2 challenging the impugned order dated 17/03/2011 passed in consumer complaint No.277/07, supra. There is a delay of 80 days d in filing the appeal and to get condone the same an application bearing No.MA/12/152 is pressed.
(4) As far as the complainant-Jaspinder Singh Padam is concerned, it is alleged that he had not received free copy of the impugned order, but when he made enquiry with the office, he was told that said copy was sent by ordinary post on 22/03/2011. Therefore, he applied for certified copy and after receiving the same, immediately filed this appeal and, thus, there is a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. Delay is also neither intentional nor malafides could be attributed to the complainant. We find no reason not to accept the contention explaining the delay. Thus, holding that the delay is satisfactorily explained, we condone the delay in filing the appeal.
(5) As far as the opponent No.1 & 2 are concerned, they tried to explain the delay in filing their appeal on the ground that after getting knowledge of the impugned order dated 17/03/2011, they have applied for certified copy and which was received by them on 02/12/2011. Copy of the certified copy filed by them is dated 02/12/2011. But the first copy was sent by post on 22/03/2011. It does not bear the date on which application for certified copy was made. Under the circumstances, perse, we find the statement explaining the delay is not satisfactorily. However, since the impugned order is also challenged by the complainant himself and we entertained that appeal condoning the delay; we also condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal by the opponent No.1 & 2, in the larger interest of justice, but subject to costs of 2,000/- payable by them to the non-applicant/complainant. Costs be paid within 30 days failing which without reference to the Commission, the application No.MA/12/152 filed by the opponent No.1 & 2 shall stand automatically dismissed.
