The challenge in this appeal by the builder, under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “The Act”) is to an order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short ‘‘the State Commission’’), in complaint No.08/50.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant Builder to execute the conveyance in favour of the Complainant Society within a period of 6 months of the date of receipt of copy of the order after obtaining full occupancy certificate from the Brihanmumbai Municpal Corporation (BMC)/concerned local authority.

               There is a delay of 452 days in filing the Appeal. An application praying for condonation of delay has been filed along with the Appeal, wherein the following explanation for the delay has been furnished:

                              “3.   That the Appellant was never served with any Notice of the Complaint pending before the Hon’ble State Commission.  Consequently, Appellant was proceeded ex-parte and the impugned order dated 24.02.2012 was passed by  the Hon’ble State Commission against the Appellant without hearing the Appellant.  The Appellant was handed

-3-

               over a copy of the impugned order dated 24.02.2012 by other residents of the Society and immediately, on receipt of the same, the Appellant applied for setting aside the ex-parte order before the Hon’ble State Commission on the basis of the legal advice received on 05.12.2012 / January, 2013.  It is trite that the Hon’ble State Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an Application in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court.  The said application came to be rejected on 15.03.2013.  Immediately, thereafter, the Appellant has preferred the instant Appeal before this Hon’ble Commission.”      

               We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant on the question of condonation of delay. 

               In our opinion the explanation is wholly unsatisfactory.  Assuming the version of the Appellant that they were not served with the notice in the Complaint to be correct, admittedly they learnt about the impugned order on 24.02.2012.  The issue regarding jurisdiction of the State Commission to review/recall its order having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court long time back, there was no reason for filing such an application on the legal advice on 15.12.2002/January 2013.  Furthermore, even after the dismissal of the application on 15.03.2013, the Appellant took more than

-4-

four months in filing the appeal on 15.07.2013.  These are obvious gaping holes in the explanation furnished.   

Bearing in mind the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority – (2011) 14 SCC 578, to the effect that while deciding the application filed for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of

the consumer disputes will get defeated if the appeals and revisions which are highly belated are entertained, we decline to condone an inordinate delay of 452 days in filing the appeal.  Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.