TULI BUILDERS vs MAHENDER PRAKASH

IN this appeal filed against the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State dated 18.4.2002 directing the appellant/opposite party to refund Rs. 2,45,000/- with interest @ 15% and cost of proceedings, the appellant has filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is alleged therein that the appellant shifted from its address in the year 2000 to E-46 Pratap Society, Andehri (West), Mumbai and for that reason it was not served with the copy of impugned order. Appellant came to know about that order only on 9.12.2002 when a copy of miscellaneous application was given to its Counsel. Appellant received the certified copy of order on 25.2.2003 and thereafter present appeal was filed.

WE have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar for appellant. Certified copy of aforesaid order dated 18.4.2002 placed at page 14 bears the endorsement presumably by the Registry of State Commission that certified copy of order was sent by post to the appellant on 10.6.2002 and on application made on 21.2.2003, its copy is furnished to the appellant on 25.2.2003. To be only noted that as per averments made in application, the appellant had come to know about the impugned order on 9.12.2002 and if this date is taken as starting point of limitation, by the time the appellant applied for certified copy of order on 21.2.2003, 30 days period for filing the appeal had already elapsed. Appellant cannot seek extension of limitation on the ground of its having applied for certified copy of order on 21.2.2003 and the same being supplied on 25.2.2003. Explanation as given in para No. 4 of the application that because of long distance the appeal could not be filed in time, cannot be treated as sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal, too is dismissed being barred by limitation.