JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This order shall decide five revision petitions, detailed above, by this common judgment as the facts and law involved in these cases are similar. 2. First Appeals filed before the State Commission were dismissed on the ground that the appeals were filed after a delay of 2 years 10 months, each. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 23.12.2008 accepted the complaints filed by the complainants. It gave the following directions to VIP Builders & Developers, petitioner No.1/opposite party No.1 and Shri Pankaj Bhupatlal Bhayani, petitioner No.2/opposite party No.2 :- ) Complaint No.117/2008, 118/2008. 119/2008 and 139/2008 is being accepted. 2) The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 should follow the orders within 90 days of the order -3- either in personal or combined. a) completion of the construction of building and facilities should be provided as mentioned in the Agreement. b) the facility for drinking water and water for other use should be provided in the flats of the complainants. c) should do the underground concrete work of the building, lift and room for the office of society. d) the copy of Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate of the building should be provided to the complainant. e) separate electricity meter should be provided in the names of the complainant. f) should register the Housing Society of the flat holder and Transfer Certificate for disputed building should be registered. 3) Rs.40,000/- should be given individually to all complainants for mental trauma and for indemnifying the improper facility. 4) suit costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) should be given to each complainant, separately. 5) As per the registration of the clarification of the above Issue No.1, the complainant of complaint No.119 and 122/2008 should give the remaining purchase amount of flat to the opponent along with the following No.2(a) and 2(g) 6) The complainant is eligible for recovering the complete amount from opponent No.1 and 2, either individually or in combined at the interest of 12% every year, from the date of order, till all the amounts are received, if the opponent does not follow the order within prescribed period given. 7) the true copy of the above order should be sent to both the parties 4. The petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay before the State Commission. The main defence is that he was never served with the free copy of the certified order. Paras 6 & 8 of the said application are reproduced, as here under :- . I state and submit that on 13th March, 2012, I was shocked and surprised to receive the non-bailable warrant issued by the District Forum in Execution Application NO.41 of 2012. On perusal of the said documents it was revealed to me that the order has been passed on 31st July, 2009. However, the same was not served upon me at any point of time, till I received the non-bailable warrant from the District Forum. 7. xxxxx 8. I state and submit that if the delay is calculated from the date of the order dated 31st July, 2009, then in that event there is a delay of almost 2 years and 10 months. However, considering the fact that the copy of the order was not served upon me pursuant to the directions contained in the said order and if the delay is to be calculated/computed from the date of the knowledge, there is a delay of approximately 60 days in filing the appeal. And if the period is calculated from the date of issuance of certified copy, then there is no delay in filing the present appeal 5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners. He vehemently argued that the State Commission has not considered the Regulations Nos. 18, 20 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said Regulations are re-produced as follows:- 8. Final order.1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) xxxx (5) xxxx (6) When a copy of the order is sent to a party, the mode by which it is sent and the date on which it is sent shall be stamped on the last page of the order. (7) xxx 19. Return of institution and disposal of cases. (1) A Consumer Forum is expected to dispose of at least 75 to 100 matters every month. (2) A periodic monthly return of institution and disposal of cases shall be sent by the District Forums to the State Commission. (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxx 20. Preservation of records (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) Immediately after the consumer complaint, first appeal or revision petition, as the case may be, is disposed of, extra sets shall be given to the parties who may use the same for filing of appeal or revision petition and in that case the necessity to summon the record from the forums below can be dispensed with. (4) The Registrar shall inform the parties while forwarding the certified copy of the final order, where they do not appear in person at the time of finally disposing of the matter to arrange to collect the extra sets. (5) A period of at least one month shall be given for the purpose of collection of records by the party and in case of default, the extra sets shall be weeded out. 21. Certified copy. (1) A copy of the order is to be given to the parties free of cost as required under the Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) In case a party requires an extra copy, it shall be issued to him duly certified by the Registry on a payment of Rs.20/-, irrespective of number of pages. (3) A certified copy of an order shall clearly specify the date when free copy was issued, date of application, date when the copy was made ready and the date when it was so delivered to him. (4). A fee of Rs.20/- shall be paid for obtaining another certified copy. (5). Xxxx (6). Xxxx [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioners were never served with the free copy of the certified order. He contended that service of free copy is mandatory. He opined that mere knowledge of the order is nothing. The period of limitation will start from the receipt of the free copy. 7. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. The learned State Commission has given sufficient, solid and unflappable reasons for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The complainants are the flat purchasers and the petitioners are the builders and developers. According to the petitioners, the submissions were made on

31.07.2009 and the order was reserved on that day. On the contrary, the record reveals that the order was passed on the same day, i.e. 31.07.2009. According to the petitioners, it came to their knowledge that the order was passed on 31.07.2009 and he was shocked and surprised to see Non-Bailable Warrants issued by the District Forum in Execution Petition on 12.03.2012, for the first time. The petitioner No.2 discussed the matter with the Advocate and he advised him to file an appeal. The petitioner accordingly applied for certified copy on 04.06.2012, after he acquired knowledge that the order was passed against him. 8. The impugned order also reveals that one Mr.Rahul Panaskar appeared before the District Forum on 18.06.2009 as a witness. His statement was recorded and the complaint was fixed for final hearing for 16.07.2009. Both the parties were present before the District Forum on 16.07.2009. The petitioners had filed an application which was rejected by the District Forum. The arguments of both the parties were heard and the case was reserved for orders, on 31.07.2009. The record also reveals that the parties were aware of the fact that the matter was fixed for 31.07.2009, for orders. oznama which was produced before the State Commission, mentions all these facts. On 31.07.2009, the order was passed by the District Forum. It, therefore, reveals that the submissions made by the petitioners in the application for condonation of delay are false and the petitioners have not approached the court with clean hands. The petitioner wrongly stated that the case was adjourned for arguments on 31.07.2009 and the order was reserved. 9. Again the record also reveals that the District Forum had directed the Registry to forward the copy of the impugned order to the parties. According to the order of the State Commission, as per the order of the District Forum, a copy of the order passed by the District Forum was dispatched to the petitioners on 20.08.2009 and an entry to that effect was shown to the State Commission. Since a common judgment was passed, therefore, it was not necessary for the Registry to send 5 sets of copies of the order to the petitioners. There is no allegation that the free copies were dispatched at incorrect address. Address mentioned by the Registry is correct. Consequently, there arises presumption of service of the free copy on the petitioners and it remains unrebuttal on the record. It was wrongly argued that the State Commission did not consider Regulations 18, 20 and 21 of the CP Act, 1986. 10. The order of the State Commission shows that it had called the Registrar, Additional District Forum, Thane, who appeared along with a Clerk of the District Forum, who informed that the application for issue of certified copy of the order was moved on 04.06.2012 and the certified copy was immediately issued on 04.06.2012. The day to day explanation from 13.03.2012 and 04.06.2012 did not see the light of the day. 11. It is also note-worthy that the petitioners filed another appeal against the order dated 08.05.2012 passed in Execution Petition No.41/2012 before the State Commission on

08.06.2012. However, the instant appeal was not filed till then. The same was filed on 13.06.2012. The said day-to-day delay has not been explained. 12. It is also interesting to note that the petitioners had filed a Writ Petition No.6771 of 2009 before the Honle Bombay High Court in the month of July, 2009. In the Writ Petition, it was prayed hat the next date of hearing of the said complaint is 30.07.2009, on which date the Honle Forum proposes to pass the final order on the complaint without disposing the interlocutory applications of the petitioner 13. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner were quite aware of the fact that 30.07.2009 or 31.07.2009, was the date fixed by the District Forum for pronouncement of the order. It is also surprising to note that the President and the Members of the District Forum, Thane, were called for explanation by the Honle Bombay High Court, along with the file and it was noticed that the order had been passed on 31.07.2009. Consequently, on 10.08.2009, the Honle Bombay High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced, as follows:- oram : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ Date:10thAugust, 2009 1. The President and the Member of the Thane District Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum are present in Court. We have perused the file and we find that the judgment in the matter has already been given by the Forum on 31st July, 2009. It appears that the above petition has been filed on 22nd July, 2009 as against the non-passing of the order by the forum. Against the order passed by the District Forum, an Appeal under the Consumer Disputes and Redressal Act has been provided to the State Consumer Commission. Therefore, the Petitioner can agitate upon the points which are raised in the above petition before the State Consumer Commission, we therefore, refrain to entertain the petition, which is accordingly rejected 14. It is interesting to note that at that time, the Honle Bombay High Court was presided over by Honle Mr.Justice S.B.MHASE. It appears that after retirement, he has joined as President of the State Commission and passed the impugned order, meaning thereby, both these orders were passed by Honle Mr. Justice S.B.MHASE. The petitioners again tried to pull wool in the eyes of law. Consequently, it had come to the notice of the petitioners on

10.08.2009 that the order was passed against them. The petitioners had acquired the knowledge on

10.08.2009 itself. The petitioners have not come to the court, with clean hands. They have no qualms in telling lies. After getting the knowledge of the order, he should have applied for certified copy of the order immediately. His contention that he had gained knowledge on

13.03.2012 is absolutely false. 15. Arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners that mere knowledge carries no value is devoid of any merit. Knowledge is one of the crucial points from which the period of limitation starts. The story put forward by the petitioners does not just stake up. Justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is also justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined. Again, the purpose of law is to prevent the strong always having their way. The consumers are exasperated by senseless delay. The following authorities neatly dovetail with the above said view. 16. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras. 17. In State of West Bengal Vs. Brojesh Chandra Singha Barman, 2005 (3) CHN 19 , at p.24, it was held that a bare look at Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it plain that the material part of the language of proviso appended to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, is in pari materia therewith. Therefore, it would seem settled beyond caisil, that it is incumbent on the appellant to explain each day of default beyond the terminus line of the prescribed period of limitation. 18. This view is also fortified by the following authorities (1) Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 SC 1221; (2) R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 ; (3) Ram Lal and Others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, (4) Sow. Kamalabai, W/o Narasaiyya Shrimal and Narsaiyya, S/o Sayanna Shrimal Vs. Ganpat Vithalroa Gavare, 2007 (1) Mh. LJ 807 (5) Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 2006), decided on 08.10.2010. 19. It must be borne in mind that the petitioner has already delayed the matter by 3-4 years. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed with additional costs, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in each case, to be paid to the complainants in each of the revision petitions, by the petitioners, within 90 days from today, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a. It is hoped that the execution court will see the compliance of the orders passed by the consumer fora and this Commission, and send the report of their compliance to the Registrar of this Commission. 20. Before parting, it is brought to the notice of the Registrars, District Fora and State Commissions, as well as the learned Presidents of these fora that there should be complete/strict compliance of Regulation No.21(3) highlighted above. Copies of this judgment be sent to them by the Registry. ......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER