IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 230 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present first appeal has been filed against the ex parte judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint no. CC/01/72.

2. The facts of the case as per the Respondent/ Complainant are that the Appellant/ Opposite Party society made a grievance as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of definition ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the Respondent/ builder/ developer had constructed a building called “Paras Paradise’ situated in plot no. 248 in Sector 21, Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400706. The building consisted of 10 flats occupied by flat owners listed in paragraph 1 of the complaint. The Respondent on or about 04.05.1999 obtained the occupation certificate and handed over the flat to the purchasers. The occupants/ flat purchasers found that the building had developed cracks due to poor work-man ship and suffered from leakages in the very first monsoon. These facts were brought to the notice of the Respondent builder/developer by communication dated 19.05.2000 but the Respondent did not bother despite communication made from the Appellant society on behalf of flat purchasers. The Appellant had engaged the services of Architect Mr. P.S. Nadkarni who inspected that the building and suggested remedial measures for stopping of leakages at the cost of Rs.4,11,400/-. The Appellant had sought co-operation from the Respondent but the Respondent failed and neglected to carry out the repairs as suggested by the Architect and did not bother to heed the requirements stated by communications from the society.

3. It was the grievance of the Respondent/ Complainant that although the Respondent had appeared earlier in the complaint proceeding, the complaint remained pending as it was marked sine die. It was the further grievance of the Respondent that the file was not traceable earlier as it was missing and, therefore, remained pending. The Respondent while the complaint remained pending, suggested amendment in the complaint which was carried out but when the amended complaint was sought to be served upon the Appellant/ Opposite Party, they had refused to accept the notice. Affidavit in support of service of RPAD was already filed on behalf of Respondent dated 31.03.2016. Envelope, which indicates that the envelope sent by RPAD was returned as ‘refused’ by the Appellant – Paras Construction and others, which was duly sent on their last known address was brought to the notice of the State Commission.

4. The reply filed on behalf of the Appellant denied the averments made in the complaint by their affidavit dated 20.12.2001. According to the Appellants, the Respondents had formed a Co-operative Housing Society illegally and did not make payment to the developer for allotment of parking area. It was also denied that there was poor workmanship or negligence on the part of the Appellant. Hence, it was contended that the Appellant was not liable to compensate the Respondent. It was also alleged that the purchasers did not allow the contractor to carry out the repair work.

5. The State Commission vide order dated 31.03.2016 while partly allowing the complaint observed as under:—

“We have seen the statement of deficiencies appearing in the affidavit of the opponent dated 20.12.2001. In our opinion, it was the responsibility of the builder/ developers to carry out essential repairs to the building constructed by so as to allow reasonable habitation of the flats in the building. By their conduct to avoid carrying out repairs and to attend hearing of this complaint despite notices and simple denial of the claim by affidavit, in our opinion, entitles the complainant society to reliefs which are prayed for in this consumer complaint. We, therefore, allow the complaint as prayed for opponent shall pay to the complainant society a sum of Rs.18,34,100/- so as to enable the complainant society to carry out essenti