Delay in filing substitution application not condoned due to lack of sufficient cause; strict adherence to limitation rules emphasized in consumer proceedings.

1. Heard Mr. Chaitanya G Barapatre, Advocate, for the petitioner.

2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur dated 20.12.2019 and 07.01.2021 passed in First Appeal No. A/15/180 of 2015 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur dated 25.02.2014, passed in Consumer Complaint No.626 of 2012) whereby State Commission has rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement and substituting the heirs of Smt. Shakuntala Prakash Choudhari (sole respondent) and dismissed the appeal as abated.

3. Smt. Shakuntala Prakash Choudhari (the respondent) filed Consumer Complaint No. 626/2012, for directing the petitioner to deliver possession of Duplex No. 136 (admeasuring 950 Sq.ft., super built-up area 1145 sq.ft.), constructed on Khasra No. 319/1, 319/2, 319/3 and 319/4, City Survey No. 101, Sheet No. 254, Mouza Nagpur, Corporation House no. 1128/F, Ward No. 20, Nagpur to her and execute sale deed in respect of aforementioned duplex, in alternative to pay present market price of the duplex or give other duplex of the same area in same locality and execute sale deed in her favour, to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony, Rs.5000/- as cost of the litigation and any other relief which may deem fit and proper. It was stated that the petitioner advertised for construction of residential duplex at aforementioned location, Nagpur, in 2005. The respondent paid Rs.13,75,000/- on 05.04.2005 for the aforesaid duplex and an agreement in her favour was executed by the petitioner (the developer) and the owner of the land. Under the agreement, possession over the duplex had to be delivered till October, 2006. However, due to some dispute with the land owners, the construction could not be started at the time of agreement. The dispute with land owners was settled on 14.10.2006. Then the constructed was started in 2007 and completed in 2011. The complainant requested to execute sale deed of the duplex in her favour and hand over its possession to her but the petitioner was avoiding her requests. The complainant gave legal notice on 04.07.2012 but in spite of service of the notice neither any reply was given nor was sale deed executed. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 11.09.2012.

4. In spite of service of the notice, the petitioner did not appear before District Forum. Therefore, the case was proceeded exparte against him. After recording evidence of the complainant, the complaint was partly allowed by order dated 25.02.2014. The petitioner filed First Appeal No. A/15/180 of 2015 from the aforesaid order. State Commission issued notice to the respondent on 02.12.2015, which was returned back with endorsement that the respondent was dead. State Commission, thereafter, granted time to the petitioner for substituting the heirs of the respondent on various dates. But the petitioner did not file any substitution application and after some times, started committing default in appearing before State Commission as such the appeal was dismissed in default by order dated 25.01.2017. The petitioner filed Revision Petition No. 3702 of 2017, against the order dated 25.01.2017. This Commission allowed the revision by order dated 26.03.2018 and remanded the matter for deciding the appeal on merit.

5. The petitioner filed an application for substituting the heirs of the respondent on 28.06.2018. Notice of this substitution application was issued to the proposed heirs. The proposed heirs of the respondent filed an objection that substitution application was long barred by limitation and neither an application for setting aside abatemen