AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
APPLICANTS are the original appellants in the appeal and O.Ps. in the above complaints and respondents are the original complainants in the respective complaints.
FOR brevity''s sake appellants hereinafter are referred to as "Builders" and respondents as ''Flat purchasers". Builders have moved this application seeking condonation of nearly 165 days delay in filing the appeal herein. It is to be stated that the consolidated appeal has been filed although the District Forum has passed separate orders in each of the complaints. It is noticed that the orders impugned in this appeal have been passed on 18.2.2003, of which builders claim to have received certified copies whereof on 3.3.2004 and the appeal herein has been filed on 15.10.2004.
From the chronological sequence of events mentioned hereinabove, would clearly show that there is a delay of nearly 165 days in filing this appeal.
BUILDERS have sought to explain the delay in para 3, 4 and 5 of the application stating that they were facing various proceedings before Consumer Forum filed by the other various flat purchasers and he was also arrested and kept in the custody for some time. It is also stated that for some time he was unwell.
APPLICATION does not spell out the precise period when he was in the custody as also hospitalized. Across, we gather that the builder was arrested on 29.9.1994 and released on 4.10.2004, which would show that the duration for which he was in the custody was only 6 days, whereas noticed earlier delay is for more than 165 days and which has not been explained at all. In any event, such an inordinate delay cannot be condoned. We, therefore, proceed to reject the application seeking condonation of delay. Hence the following order: ORDER 1. Application No. 2152/04 stands rejected. 2. Consequently Appeal being No. 1868/04 also meets the same fate. 3. At this stage, Mr. Warunjikar submitted that the builder has not disputed the amounts claimed by the flat purchaser in the respective complaints. 4. However, the interest which is awarded @ 15% p.a. and from the date of payments be reconsidered and modified. 5. Mr. Patwardhan on behalf of the flat purchasers submitted that the flat purchasers have secured amount by obtaining loan and, therefore, interest awarded is just and reasonable. In our view interest @ 12% p.a. will be fair and reasonable in the matters herein and we modify the impugned order as a matter of indulgence and taking into consideration that builders had not disputed the amounts payable to the respective flat purchasers and each impugned order, as far as operative Clause No. 1 stands modified accordingly. 6. No order as to costs in this application. 7. Copies of the order herein to be furnished to the parties.
Appeal dismissed.