BAPPANAND NARSHIMMAN ANNU R/O. 404, B WING, BHAWANI TOWER, IT POWAI, MUMBAI Vs. HIRMANIDEVI G.S. GUPTA & ORS. R/O. CCI, ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR, AMBIKA APT. SARVODAYA NAGAR, NAHUR ROAD, MULUND (W) MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These three Revision Petitions, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), have been filed by a real Estate Developer, Opposite Party No.2 in the Complaint, against a common order dated 13.07.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short the State Commission) in Misc. Applications No. MA/16/44, MA/16/45 and MA/16/46 in/and First Appeals No. A/16/86, A/16/88 and A/16/90 respectively. By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay of 121 days caused in filing of the Appeals and has consequently dismissed the Appeals as not entertain able for hearing.

(2.) The Appeals, together with the aforesaid Applications, seeking condonation of delay, had been preferred by the Petitioner, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 21.05.2015, passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra, Mumbai (for short the District Forum) in Complaint Cases No. CC/12/120, CC/12/119 and CC/12/118, preferred by the Complainants. By the said order, the District Forum, while holding that the Complainants were consumers under the Act and there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner, in not delivering the possession of the flats purchased by them, had partly allowed the Complaints, inter alia, directing that Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, i.e. M/s Annappi Construction Company and the Petitioner herein respectively, shall jointly or severally hand over the possession of the flats to the Complainants after accepting the balance consideration amount, within four months from the date of the said order. The District Forum had also directed the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation towards the mental pain and a further sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as litigation costs to each of the Complainants.

(3.) The occasion to file the Complaints arose under the following circumstances: