SOUMEN CHAKRABORTY Vs. PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under sec. 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dtd. 30/10/2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 106 of 2016.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the developer (the appellant herein) and the complainant in person (the respondent herein). We have also perused the material on record, including inter alia the State Commission's impugned Order dtd. 30/10/2017, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 455 days. We see that the grounds taken in the application for condonation of delay are, one, that the developer was not aware of the Order of the State Commission as it was passed ex parte against it and it came to know of the same only when it received summons in execution proceedings, and, two, the advocate who was entrusted with the task of filing the appeal kept delaying the same.