Tribunal jolt for builder

Along with it,the builder also signed an application seeking an exemption from filing a certified copy of the order in which the state forum had dismissed the appeal. The builders,however,did not mention the period of delay for which condonation was sought.

The court referred the office report and observed that it was a delay of 1,072 days. It was contended by the builders in national consumer commission that they had come to know about the dismissal of appeal by state commission only after their received execution orders on May 21,2012,although the order was passed on April 28,2009.

However,Justice Gupta observed,‘As per office report,the copy of that order was received by the petitioners on April 2009.

The petitioners have deliberately and for reasons best known to them have chosen not to place on record the certified copy of the impugned order till date.’ The builder has also failed to put on record their follow-up with the court clerk or the advocate.

Considering the record before the court,Justice Gupta stated that “the present revision petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and as well as has no merit in it. Accordingly,the present revision petition,being most bogus and frivolous,is hereby dismissed with punitive costs of Rs 20,000.”

In case the builders fail to deposit the cost within the prescribed period,then they shall also be liable to pay interest of 9 per cent per annum till realisation.

The original complaint Dudhane had filed a complaint against Poonam Developers before the Pune District Consumer Forum (consumer court) stating that she had asked the builders to construct a bungalow on her plot.

The builder left the work incomplete,after which Dudhane had demanded compensation. The Pune district forum,on June 17,2008,had directed the builders to pay Rs 1lakh at 9 per cent interest. The builder had appealed against this order in the state commission,which was dismissed.