STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Misc.Application No.MA/24/153 in A/24/224 (Arising against the order dated 21/12/2018 passed by the D.F. Thane in CC/14/603)

Gokuldham C1 C2 Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.

Through its Chairman & Secretary Phoolpada Road, Virar (East)

...... Applicant/Appellant/org.OP Taluka Vasai, Dist.Palghar 401 305 Versus Mr.Shashikant Vishnu Chavan R/o.B-203, Gokuldham C1 C2 CHSL Type C-1, 2^nd floor, Gokuldham complex Phoolpada Road, Virar (East) 401 303 ………Respondent/org.complainant Also at

243-Sultan Building, Room no.33 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W)

Mumbai BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Advocate Rajat Bhosale for applicant/appellant.

Advocate Sandip Bhoir for respondent FINAL ORDER (Dt.11/06/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member The factual matrix of this application.

1. The present applicant has moved an application for condoning the delay to file the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld.District Consumer Forum in consumer complaint no.603/2014 dated 21/12/2018. The applicant contended in the application for condonation of delay that the respondent (org.complainant) filed the complaint before the Ld.District Consumer Forum in the year 2014. The complaint was admitted as on

24/11/2014, the notices were issued to the respondent and after receiving the said notice, the present applicant society appointed an advocate to represent them before the Ld.District Consumer Forum. The applicant society filed their Written Statement to the said complaint as on 20/08/2015 and the decree was passed as on 21/12/2018 in the original consumer complaint.

2. The applicant society made a submission that after appointment of advocate, the applicant society was under the impression that their advocate will handle the matter and they need not to worry. The advocate appointed by the applicant did not attend the matter and not represented the applicant in the Court properly, hence the said impugned order was passed in favour of the respondent. The applicant society tried to contact the advocate for enquiring about the updates of the matter but every time he was unable to answer the appellant. Even at the time of final argument the advocate was not appearing before the Ld.District Consumer Forum. The applicant society members dealing with the aforesaid matter are retired and other members do not have the proper knowledge of law and also they are not capable to attend the matter on every occasion. They are regularly following up with the advocate appointed by them about the matter they have no knowledge about the decree.

3. It is further contended that applicant received the notice dated 07/12/2022 and also got a call from Virar Police station to come and meet with the concerned police officer. The committee members contacted the respondent to come and meet to settle the issue but he has not replied. In the month of March 2023, the applicant society conducted the election for appointment of new committee and the new committee was appointed. Thereafter the committee obtained certified copy of relevant documents from the Ld.District Consumer Forum and filed the present delay condonation application along with appeal. During the period the out-break of Covid-19, hence applicant members could not attend the court proceedings due to their health issue and other reasons like travelling issues. As per the judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) 3 of 2020, the limitation period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 (one year 11 months and 14 days) shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. There is actual delay of 5 years and 14 days to present this appeal. If Covid-19 pandemic period is excluded there will be 3 years and 17 days delay. The applicant submitted and prayed that the delay of 3 years 3 months and 15 d