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

              Heard Adv. Wavikar for the complainant on delay condonation application.  Adv. Prabhawalkar for the opposite party no. 1.

              In filing this complaint, there is delay of 534 days when calculated by us.  According to the complainant, there is delay of 348 days from the date of order received by the complainant.  Said delay is exorbitant.  It was the duty of the complainant to explain the delay in filing this complaint.  Initially this complaint was filed before us in Commission.  But the claim preferred in the complaint was below `20 Lakhs.  Therefore, by the order dated 17/07/2008 of this Commission, the complaint was returned forthwith to the complainant to file it before appropriate District Consumer Forum.  Thereafter, the complaint was filed in District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban. 

              According to the complainant now he is to pay total amount `21,27,500/- from the total consideration of the flat.  The price of flat is `22,27,500/-, hence, cognizance of the complaint could not be taken by the forum below.  Forum below returned the complaint to the complainant on the point of jurisdiction.  In this background, complainant was expecting to file his complaint before this Commission immediately, but complainant slept over his right and filed it on 09/04/2010.   This delay in our view is abnormal and exorbitant and it can not be condoned.  In Para no. 8 in the application it is mentioned that however owing to inadvertence and being prepccupied with an outstation office work, the applicant was not able to provide to his advocate the complaint and supporting documents after completing necessary formalities.  The reasons stated by the complainant for delay condonation is not just and sufficient.  Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay.  In the circumstances, we pass following order. 

ORDER

              1.      Misc. application No. 220/2010 for condonation of delay                           stands rejected.

               2.      Consequently complaint does not survive for consideration.

              3.      No order as to cost.

              4.      Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.  

Pronounced

Dated 20 December 2010