Mr.S.M.Correia-Advocate for the appellant
Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President
This appeal is directed as against the order dated 19/9/2007 passed in consumer complaint no.65/2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane. Appellant is an original opponent and proprietor of Santosh Group of company, Builders and Developers. Respondent has booked a flat with the appellant and entered into a separate transaction. We need not go into these details. This complaint was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by the above referred order and it has been directed that the appellant shall pay `5000/- by way of cost and within a period of six months from the receipt of the order shall hand over flat no.401 Gurukul to the respondent. It has been further directed that amount of `1,48,400/- which has been taken by the appellant in excess of agreed transaction shall be returned. This order was communicated by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by dispatch no.1936/2007 on 04/10/2007 and such is the endorsement on certified copy of the order, which is produced on record. Therefore, immediately after passing of an order, free copy has been dispatched to the appellant. Now this appeal has been filed on 16/12/2010 and there is delay in filing the appeal.
According to us, there is delay of three years two months and one day in filing this appeal. However, appellant has stated in the application that there is delay of 12 months in filing the appeal. He states that he has calculated the delay from the notice of the execution application. What is interesting to note that this appeal itself is an after thought proceeding so as to thwart and give blow to the execution petition, which has been filed by the respondent/org.complainant. It is interesting to note that complaint was filed by the respondent on or about 08/3/2007. In this complaint, from the order we find, that several times notices were issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to the appellant. However, all these notices returned unserved since it was not possible to serve the appellant and the notice is being avoided. Complainant/respondent followed a system of substituted service and, therefore, with the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum public notice was published in daily newspaper ‘Kokan Sakal’. In spite of publication of the said notice appellant has remained absent and, therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was required to proceed in absence of the appellant. These facts are nowhere disputed in the application or in the appeal memo.
It is further interesting to note that he admits notice of execution application. Even after receipt of execution notice, there is delay of 12 months in filing the appeal. No reasons are quoted as to why he remained absent in spite of service of public notice in the newspaper before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. No explanation is coming as to why after receipt of notice in execution application, 12 months time was taken to file the appeal. No explanation is being given about the receipt of free copy. It is revealed that the address of the appellant in the complaint and appeal memo is one and the same. There are no sufficient grounds on record to condone the delay. This is only an after thought efforts and last efforts to see that the proceeding is challenged and, thereby, further execution can be postponed. No merits. Hence the order:-
ORDER
Misc.Application for condonation of delay is rejected.
In the result, appeal is rejected.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.