The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely filing of appeals in consumer matters and the need for sufficient cause to condone delays.

ORDER

Mr. Suresh Chandra, Member - This appeal takes exception to the impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in complaint case No. CC/12/85 whereby the State Commission held the appellant/opposite party deficient in service and passed the following order in the consumer complaint filed by the respondents/complainants:-

"(i) Complaint is partly allowed.

(ii) The Opponents are directed to pay an amount of 5,00,000/- as per Clause 2 of the agreement to the Complainant.

(iii) The Opponents are directed to handover the office for the Complainant Society as per clause 14(a) of the agreement or alternatively pay an amount of Rs. 19,20,000/- (@ Rs. 12,000/- per sq.ft.) as per market value.

(iv) The Opponents are directed to pay costs of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant Society.

(v) The Opponents are directed to comply this order within a period of two months, failing which the amount will carry interest @9% per annum till its realization."

2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the OPs/appellants have now challenged the same by filing the present appeal. Along with the appeal, the appellants have also filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 389 days in preferring this appeal beyond the period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. We have perused the application and heard Shri Ashutosh Marathe, Advocate appearing for the appellants in respect of the request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. It is submitted by the appellants that the impugned order dated 19.12.2013 was dispatched on 27.12.2013 and was received by the appellants on 1.1.2014. Since the appeal came to be filed on 23.1.2015, there is a delay of 389 days which according to the appellants has been caused due to inadvertence and is unintentional. Reasons for the delay in question are submitted by the appellants in paras 5, 6 and 7 of their application which we consider it fair and just to reproduce, thus:-

"5. That the appellant/Ops did not challenge the Order since they wanted to comply with the financial part of the Order and since they had already complied with the other part of the Order directing them to hand over society office to the Respondent/Complainant. Instead of accepting the contention of the Appellants/Ops, the Respondent/Complainant have proceeded with filing of execution applications; and aggrieved by the said devious act on the part of the Respondent/Complainant, the present appeal has been filed.

6. That, after receipt of the order, the Appellant/Ops tried to reason out with the Respondent/Complainant that the Society Office had already been given to them and that it was in possession of the Respondent/Complainant for the past 8 years and the Appellants/Ops kept hoping that the Respondent/Complainant society shall accept the argument of the Appellant/Ops since the Appellant/Ops and the Respondent/Complainant - both have copies of the Plan duly approved by the Municipal Authorities which clearly shows demarcated area for the Society office whereat the Society office is actually existing.

7. However, the Respondent/Complainant did not accept the argument of the Appellant/Ops and proceeded with filing of execution application. Since the respondent/complainant has filed execution applications including an application filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 demanding imprisonment of the Appellant/Ops, the appellant/Ops are left with no choice but to challenge the impugned order dated 19.12.20213."

5. Elaborating the reasons for the delay in filing their appeal, the appellants have stated that they were quite positive since they are in possession of compelling the evidence of having given possession of the society office to the respondent/complainant, they will be able prevail upon the respondent/complainant to put an end to this litigation and hence decided to take up the issue with the respondent/complainant instead of preferring an appe