Nirmal Land Developers And Builders Through Its Proprietor vs Rameshchandra Gopalrao Pande

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. A/11/169 - Nirmal Land Developers & Builders Vs. Rameshchandra Gopalrao Pande by which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as barred by limitation.

COMPLAINANT /respondent filed complaint before District Forum with a prayer to direct OP/petitioner to execute sale deed of plot Nos. 57 & 68 in favour of the complainant and pay Rs.55,000/- as compensation towards harassment. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint vide order dated 24.11.2009 and directed OP to execute sale deed and pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses.ï¿ 1/2 Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission, as it was barred by 15 months. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

PETITIONER filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay before the learned State Commission and submitted that as soon as the impugned order dated 24.11.2009 was passed by District Forum, petitioner approached to the concerned Clerk of the Forum and asked about the copy of the order and petitioner was asked by the Clerk that the copy will be served at his registered address and asked him to wait.ï¿ 1/2 Petitioner waited for two months, but copy was not received.ï¿ 1/2 Again in March 2010, petitioner approached to the Clerk and Clerk shown him dispatch entry about the copy of the order. It was further alleged by the petitioner that he waited till October, but did not receive copy of the order.ï¿ 1/2 After that, he suffered typhoid and remained bed ridden for two months and later on applied for certified copy on 16.3.2011 and received it on 18.3.2011 and appeal was filed on 25.3.2011.5. Perusal of application clearly reveals that petitioner was aware of the order dated 24.11.2009, but he waited for two months for copy of the order and apparently after four months in March 2010, he again contacted Clerk of the Forum, who had shown him dispatch of the copy of the order, but even then he waited till October, 2010 and did not apply for certified copy of the order as free copy was not received by him.ï¿ 1/2 He has not filed any document pertaining to suffering by typhoid.ï¿ 1/2 As per his application, he remained bed ridden for two months on account of typhoid meaning thereby from November to December, 2010, but he did not apply for certified copy in January, 2011, but applied on 16.3.2011 and there is no explanation for delay in applying certified copy of the order of District Forum.ï¿ 1/2 No satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner for condonation of delay and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal as barred by 15 months.

4.AS there is inordinate delay of 15 months, this delay cannot be condoned in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) (2010) 5 SCC 459 - Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3) 2012 (2) CPC 3 (State Commission) - Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.

WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY, revision petition filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. A/11/169 - Nirmal Land Developers & Builders Vs. Rameshchandra Gopalrao Pandeis dismissed at admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.