Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.540/2006 dated 28/5/2008.  Said complaint was allowed and the appellants are directed to transfer the share and interest of flat in question in the name of respondent.  Appellants are further directed to raise the bills as per law, shall provide details of break up of  demand and justification in respect of the bills, shall make necessary repairs as per request of respondent/complainant and the opponent shall not charge compound interest.  Appellant is further directed to pay complainant Rs.10,000/- towards the harassment and mental agony.  Appellant is further directed to pay to respondent Rs.10,000/- towards negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and the cost of Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the proceeding.  There is a delay of 107 days in filing the appeal. Admittedly, order dated 28/5/2008 was received by the society on 22/10/2008. 

                                      ORDER

Misc. application for condonation of delay stands rejected. 

Consequently appeal is rejected. 

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

However, it appears from endorsement on duplicate certified copy dated 22/10/2008 that free copy of order dated 28/5/2008 was dispatched to the appellant and respondent by outward No.540/06 on 17/6/2008.  The address of appellant is correct as reflected in order and appeal memo. Therefore, in natural course said copy must have been received by the appellant. Appellant is not giving explanation about the receipt of said free copy of order. There is no whisper in the application about free copy of order.  It is further interesting to note that appellant has stated that Watchman of appellant Society had received a envelope containing the intimation/show cause notice in respect of execution petition filed by the respondent.  It is admitted that said intimation/show cause notice was received on 11/9/2008.  But according to appellant said envelope was not opened by Society till 11/10/2008, because mother of Secretary of Society was ill and all other members of society and of managing committee were preoccupied in their work.  According to appellant, in a meeting dated 11/10/2008 decision to file appeal and oppose execution petition was taken. Therefore, certified copy was obtained on 22/10/2008 and appeal has been filed.  These admitted or stated facts itself show that there was/is no sufficient ground to condone delay. As observed earlier the appellant failed to explain about free copy which was dispatched by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 03/06/2008. 

Secondly, there is nothing on record to show that the mother of Secretary was ill and, therefore, Secretary was not attending any work, that is his regular business of service and work of society. In fact the Chairman of Society could have also looked into this case. There is no explanation about inaction on the part of Chairman of society. A vague statement is made in the application that other members and managing committee members were preoccupied.  That cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. It is interesting to know that envelope which was received by watchman of society though received on 11/9/2008, was not opened by appellant till 11/10/2008.  This can’t be believed.  On the contrary, facts on record show that appellant society and its members were well aware of order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but for the reasons best known to them they had/have not taken steps to file appeal within limitation.  It is to be noted that respondent/complainant is also member of appellant society.  Respondent is residing in the same society. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that after decision of case appellants were not aware of decision till 11/10/2008 that is till the envelope received by watchman on 11/09/2008, was/is opened in the managing committee meeting, because after the decision the respondent must have told this fact to the members of society and insisted for implementation of order.  Not only that but respondent in fact had filed execution application wherein appellants had appeared on 13/10/2008.  In short there is/are no sufficient reasons/cause for condonation of delay.  Application therefore is hereby rejected.

   Hence the order:-