Prasanna Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Radheshyam Bateshwar Pandey

THIS revision petition has been filed by M/s. Prasanna Builders Pvt. Ltd. against concurrent orders of both the fora below. But, it has been filed with a delay of 187 days. As per the application for condonation of this delay, the applicant came to know about the impugned order having been passed on 30.11.2009 by the State Commission, only when he received show cause notice from the District Forum. Thereafter, an application was made and a copy of the impugned order received on 10.12.2010. It is further stated by the Revision Petitioner that the first copy of the impugned order was not received as it had been sent on the address mentioned in the title of the appeal, which had already changed in 2005. It is seen that the address given in the records of the State Commission was: M/s. Prasanna Builders Pvt. Ltd., 27/C Jaiswal Bhauvan, M.G. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai- 400 080 The address now given is this: M/s. Prasanna Builders Pvt. Ltd. 501/502, Marothon Chambers, P.K.Road, Pach Rasta, Mulund (West) Mumbai 400080

THIS change of address notwithstanding, the explanation fails to convince. The first appeal before State Commission was filed in 1999 and decided in 2009. The Revision Petitioner himself was the appellant. If therefore, the above mentioned change of address did actually take place in the year 2005 as claimed, it was more than incumbent upon the petitioner to inform the change of address, being itself the party which has invoked the jurisdiction of the State Commission. We therefore, do not accept it as sufficient explanation of the delay. Accordingly, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. Coming to the merits of the case, it is seen that the revision petitioner had invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbi Suburban District, which has allowed the complaint of the present respondent with the following directions: a) The Op is directed to give certified copy of the plan approved by the concerned local authority/Govt. to the Complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. b) The OP is further directed to give vacant and peaceful possession of the flat No.12 in Prithvi Building, Nayan Sagar, situated at Opp. Village Kalhar, Taluka Bhivandi, Dist. Thane by obtaining balance payment from the complainant within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. c) The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant within six months of receipt of copy of this judgment. d) No order as to cost.

In the above order, the District Forum has noted that Sri Anant Thakre, one of the Partners of the OP i.e. the present Revision Petitioner, had filed an affidavit on 6.2.1997 as well as an additional affidavit on 19.6.1997. During the course of arguments, our attention was also drawn by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner to this additional affidavit. The counsel accepted that it was a case of statutory presumption of approval of the construction plan. The position as stated in this additional affidavit filed by Sri Anant Tahkre before the District Forum on 19.6.1997 is reproduced below:- I say that the Plan for the Phase-II, which include the building in which the Flat of the complainant is situated, were submitted for approval in September, 1993, which were not returned and therefore they are deemed to be approved under the Provisions of Law.

IT is apparently in this background, that the District Forum gave the direction to give certified copy of the approved plan. The State Commission has, therefore, observed that there is no effective answer for non-supply of documents, which was necessary for respondent/complainant to raise the financial assistance. The State Commission also observed that the appellant/Builder can not take benefit of his own wrong, having failed to supply necessary documents, which could have enabled the purchaser to raise the requisite finances to pay the balance of consideration. The State Commission, therefore, confirmed the order of the District Forum. In the light of the above, we do not find any thing in this Revision Petition, which could justify our intervention under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition, is therefore, dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. No order as to costs.