1.       These Revision Petitions, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), have been filed by a real estate developer, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, against a common order, dated 26.10.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Applications No. MA/15/222, MA/15/223 and MA/15/224 in/and First Appeals No. A/15/511, A/15/512 and A/15/513 respectively.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Applications filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals and as a necessary corollary the Appeals as well.   

2.       The Appeals had been filed by the Petitioner against three separate orders, all dated 29.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Thane (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Cases No. 426 of 2010, 427 of 2010 and 428 of 2010, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants.  By the said orders, the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaints, had directed the Petitioner to deliver possession of the flats booked by the Complainants within eight weeks from the date of the said order(s), along with the occupancy certificate and all the amenities, mentioned in the Agreements entered into by the parties, and to pay to each of the Complainants a sum of ₹1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation costs within the aforesaid period of 8 weeks.  By way of default clause, the District Forum had also directed that in case the said orders were not complied with by the Petitioner within the stipulated period, the Complainants would be entitled to compensation @ ₹500/- per day till the date of possession.   

3.       Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the afore-noted Appeals before the State Commission, however, with certain delay.  Identical Applications, praying for condonation of the said delay, had been filed along with the Appeals.  As a matter of fact, exact period of delay was not mentioned in the said Applications. 

4.       Vide the order, impugned in these Revision Petitions, the State Commission has dismissed the Applications and the Appeals in default.  Hence, the present Revision Petitions.          

5.       Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that in the light of the background facts, noted herein below, no fault can be found with the impugned order and these Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed.    

6.       It is evident that actually the State Commission has passed the order, impugned in these Revision Petitions, on the ground of default and not on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay.  Hence, leaving aside the merits of the said Applications, what we are required to consider is whether the Fora below has committed a jurisdictional error in non-suiting the Petitioner on the ground of default on its part in prosecuting the cases.

7.       In the first instance, on admission of the Complaints, in which the Petitioner was the sole Opposite Party, the District Forum had issued notice to the Petitioner.  As per the service report, the Petitioner refused to accept the same.  Thereafter, even on publication of public notice and despite several opportunities, neither the Petitioner nor anyone else entered appearance on its behalf or filed its Written Version before the District Forum.  Hence, the District Forum set the Petitioner ex-parte.  In the absence of any opposition to the Complaints, upon appreciation of the material placed on record by the Complainants, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not delivering the possession of the flats booked by the Complainants.  Consequently, the District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaints, issued the afore-noted directions to the Petitioner. 

8.       We may now advert to the next stage of Appeals before the State Commission.  We find from the record that on 26.10.2015, when the Applications seeking condonation of delay caused in filing of the Appeals were listed before the State Commission for consideration, though Counsel for the Complainants was present but there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner.  Left with no option, the State Commission dismissed the Applications as well as the Appeals, observing thus:

          “None present for the Applicant/Appellant.  Today, the Applicant/Appellant failed to appear before this Commission without any sufficient reason.  In all these cases, learned Adv. Smt. Poonam Makhijani is present on behalf of the Non-Applicants/Respondents.  Today, these cases are fixed for hearing on applications for condonation of delay.  It is for the Applicant/Appellant to appear before this Commission and make out sufficient reasons for condonation of delay.  However, the Applicant/Appellant failed to appear before this Commission today and argue the applications for condonation of delay.  Thus, it appears that the Applicant/Appellant is not interested in prosecution of applications for condonation of delay and as such, it is not desirable to prolong the matter.  Hence, Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay for filing First Appeal No. 511 of 2015 to Miscellaneous Application No. 224 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay for filing First Appeal No. 513 of 2015 stand dismissed in default for want of prosecution.  Consequently, the appeals are not entertained.  Under these circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.”  

9.       It is manifest from the above that the sole objective of the Petitioner was to protract the matter.  Had the Petitioner been really concerned about the allegation of deficiency in service on its part and was of the sanguine belief that the Complaints against it were false or motivated, it would have ensured that the same were properly contested.  Be that as it may, having suffered ex-parte orders, and missed the deadline for filing the Appeals, the Petitioner decided to challenge the same before the State Commission, of course, with Applications for condonation of delay in filing of the Appeals.  Placed in this situation, when it had lost an opportunity to put forth its stand before the District Forum, the Petitioner was expected to be extra vigilant in prosecuting its cause, at least in the Appeals, but, may be for the afore-stated reason, that was not to be.   

10.     In view of the afore-going, we have no hesitation in observing that the situation in which the Petitioner is now placed, is its own making, and does not deserve any indulgence on the plea that it has been denied an opportunity of hearing.  In this behalf, the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.K. Prasada v. Government of India and Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 299, are quite apposite:  

“24.    The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula.  Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.  It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing.”

11.     For the afore-going reasons, we find it difficult to hold that the impugned order suffers from the vice of illegality or material irregularity, so as to warrant interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.  Resultantly, the Revision Petitions are dismissed in limine.