Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by Mauchhala International & Anr. against the order dated 6.01.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in complaint No.CC/11/247.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one complaint was filed by respondents/complainant against the appellants/opposite parties (being OP Nos.1 & 2) before the State Commission, vide complaint No.247 of 2011, alleging deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties on various counts such as for not providing occupancy certificate & building completion certificate from Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to the complainant and also alleging non-compliance of statutory obligations by opposite parties by non execution of conveyance deed in favour of complainant society to transfer the rights title and interest. On 06.03.2013 complainant was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte against the appellants/opposite parties (being OP Nos.1 & 2) by State Commission. On 06.01.2014, the State Commission passed ex-parte final order against the appellants/opposite parties as under:-

“(1) Complaint is partly allowed.

(2) The opponent builder developer are directed to obtain occupation and completion certificate of the building from the competent authorities within a period of three months from the date of this order and hand over the same to the complainant society.

(3) Opponent builder developers are directed to execute conveyance deed to transfer title, rights, interest in the property in favour of the complainant society within a period of three months from the date of this order.

(4) Opponents are further directed to pay to the complainant society amounts as detailed below with interest thereon effective from 22.09.2011 till realization within 45 days from the date of this order:

(a) Rs.65,05,665/- as amount of reimbursement of property taxes paid from 01.4.2002 till 31.03.2011.

(b) Rs.5,34,093/- as reimbursement of excess water charges for a period from 21.02.2002 to 31.03.2011 (being 50% of the total amount of Rs.10,68,185/-).

(5) Opponents to bear their own costs and pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation.

(c) Rest of the prayers of the complainant society stand rejected as not specifically granted.”

3. MA/14/263 (delay) was filed along with condonation of delay for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 06.01.2014 by appellants/opposite parties (being OP No.1 & 2) before the State Commission. Appellants/opposite parties (being OP No.1 & 2) then withdrew the MA/14/263 (delay) in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541 : 2012 (1) Bom. C.R. 160 whereby it has been held that District Fora and State Commissions have not been given any power to review their own orders. The State Commission vide its order dated 23.02.2015 allowed withdrawal of this application.

4. Hence the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that appellants have been proceeded ex-parte in the State Commission and therefore, the appellants did not get any opportunity to put forward their case before the State Commission. The appellants had moved an application before the State Commission to set aside the ex-parte order dated 06.01.2014. The State Commission vide its order dated 23.02.2015 had allowed that application in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar,(supra). It was further mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a delay of 102 days in filling the present appeal and the application for condonation of delay has been filed to condone the delay. As the delay is inadvertent and due to the fact that the appellants earlier moved the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 06.01.2014 before the State Commis