PRASANNA BUILDERS PVT LTD Vs. RADHESHYAM BATESHWAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by M/s. Prasanna Builders Pvt. Ltd. against concurrent orders of both the fora below. But, it has been filed with a delay of 187 days. As per the application for condonation of this delay, the applicant came to know about the impugned order having been passed on 30.11.2009 by the State Commission, only when he received show cause notice from the District Forum. Thereafter, an application was made and a copy of the impugned order received on 10.12.2010. It is further stated by the Revision Petitioner that the first copy of the impugned order was not received as it had been sent on the address mentioned in the title of the appeal, which had already changed in 2005. It is seen that the address given in the records of the State Commission was:

(2.) This change of address notwithstanding, the explanation fails to convince. The first appeal before State Commission was filed in 1999 and decided in 2009. The Revision Petitioner himself was the appellant. If therefore, the above mentioned change of address did actually take place in the year 2005 as claimed, it was more than incumbent upon the petitioner to inform the change of address, being itself the party which has invoked the jurisdiction of the State Commission. We therefore, do not accept it as sufficient explanation of the delay. Accordingly, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.

(3.) Coming to the merits of the case, it is seen that the revision petitioner had invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the State Commission against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbi Suburban District, which has allowed the complaint of the present respondent with the following directions: