Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Sant Sagar Builders &
Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Sagar Heights Co-Operative
Housing Society Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1833 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 19/10/2015 in Appeal No. 898/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 24.10.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Huge delay of 43 months in filing revision petition cannot be condoned.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(o) – Real estate – Deficiencies in constructed building – District Forum allowed complaint and directed opposite parties/petitioners to execute conveyance deed in favour of complainant – Delay of about 1258 days in filing of revision petition – Petitioners have not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of their revision petition as no action was taken for initial two years and even afterwards no action has been taken by petitioners for either compliance of order of District Forum or for filing revision petition – If petitioners were not in a position to comply with order of District Forum and State Commission, they should have approached this Commission by filing revision petition in time which has not been done – Negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides are imputable to petitioners in filing present revision petition – No sufficient cause to condone huge delay of 43 months in filing present revision petition – Application for condonation of delay dismissed – Revision petition also dismissed at admission stage. (Paras 9 and 12)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Sant Sagar Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others against the order dated 19.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.A/15/898.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Society filed a consumer complaint before the Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, (in short ‘the District Forum) for removing the deficiencies in the constructed building and for handing over the occupation certificate and completion certificate in respect of the building as well as for conveying the land on which the project has been built. The complaint was resisted by the petitioners/opposite parties by filing the written statement. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties/petitioners herein to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant.
3. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred appeal bearing No.A/15/898 before the State Commission, which vide its order dated 19.10.2015 passed the following order:-
“Mr. Prashant Raut-Advocate for appellant with authority letter. Mr. Bhaskar Yogi- Advocate for respondent undertakes to file his vakalatnam.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Order is only about statutory obligations to execute conveyance under the provisions of MOFA. We find that there is nothing on record even to admit the appeal. Hence, appeal is not admitted and stands disposed of.”
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are in difficulty to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant society because there are other societies formed by the residents and the petitioners have to execute conveyance deed in favour of those societies as well. Learned counsel stated that when the order of the District Forum was passed there was already another society for the same project which was not made party by the complainant society in the complaint and inspite of raising this issue before the District Forum, the District Forum has passed the order for conveying the property in favour of the complainant society. The State Commission has also not considered this aspect raised by the petitioners. He further stated that two of the other societies have already gone to some other forum for seeking conveyance in their favour. In this regard, learned counsel has produced before this Commission a hearing notice dated 20.08.2019 issued by Competent Authority and District Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies (2), Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai.
6. It was further stated by the learned counsel that there is a delay of 43 months (1258 days has been mentioned by the Registry) in filing the present revision petition. Learned counsel mentioned that after the order of the State Commission, the petitioners were trying to settle the matter amongst societies and a meeting was also called inviting all the societies. However, the matter could not be settled, then the revision petition has been preferred. This has caused the delay in filing the present revision petition. It was requested that the delay may be condoned and the revision petition may be admitted.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. It is seen that the order of the State Commission has been passed on 19.10.2015. Admittedly there is a delay of about 1258 days. The following has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay:-
“6. I state and submit that the petitioners had in fact decided to accept the order passed by the District forum and the State Commission and were negotiating to resolve the so-called dispute with the Respondent herein viz. Sagar Heritage Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
