Date : 16.01.2013. Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member. 1. Adv.Shri.Jayant Chitnis present for appellant, Adv.Shri.Rahul Joshi present for respondent No.1 to 3. We have heard both the advocates on delay condonation application. It is submitted by Adv.Shri.Jayant Chitnis for appellant that copy of impugned judgment and order dated 4.3.2011 was ready for delivery on 16.3.2011 and it was received by appellant`s advocate on the same day. That appellant No.1 Arvind Janardhan Pandit had fallen ill on 15.3.2011. He was taken to Parvati Hospital at Aurangabad. He was admitted there. He was advised to take bed rest for a long period. Therefore he could not move anywhere. That, in the meantime order was passed by District Forum and copy of that order was collected by advocate of complainant on 16.3.2011 and due to ill health, appellant No.1 could not approach his advocate and collect the copy of order. He submitted that only after 10.11.2011 the appellant could move out of his house and approached the builder. He further submitted that due to ailment appellant No.1 could not approach this Commission in time for filing appeal. He has invited our attention to medical certificate filed on record to show illness of the appellant No.1 as hypertension. He thus submitted that delay of 231 days only occurred as appellant was suffering from acute hypertension during that period. Hence delay may be condoned. He also submitted that appellant has very good case and he has high hope to get success in the case. Hence on this ground delay of 231 days may be condoned to meet ends of justice. 2. On the other hand Adv.Shri.Rahul Joshi appearing for respondents strongly opposed the condonation of delay on the grounds that it is not stated in the delay application that as on which date appellant No.1 had fallen ill and on which date he was recovered from that illness. He further submitted that no reason is given in the application as to what prevented both the appellants to file appeal. He also submitted that certificate filed on record is not sufficient for consideration of delay of 231 days. He also submitted that otherwise also appellants have no good case and thus on this ground also delay cannot be condoned. 3. We thus considered the submission of learned advocate of both sides. Medical certificate of Parvati Hospital, Aurangabad is filed on record. It is dated 10.11.2011 and it is certified that Arvind Pandit is suffering from hypertension and was under the treatment of doctor from 15.3.2011. He was advised rest and regular follow up. 4. Appeal is received by this Commission on 7.12.2011. It is filed with delay condonation application, raising ground that appellant No.1 could not contact his advocate for filing appeal due to his suffering from hypertension. Appellants relied on medical certificate. This certificate simply shows that that appellant No.1 was suffering from hypertension from 15.3.2011 and he was advised rest and regular follow up. It does not show that appellant No.1 was totally bed ridden and he was unable to move. Therefore on the basis of said certificate we do not find that appellant was prevented by hypertension from approaching his advocate for filing appeal. 5. Appellant No.2 Sow.Kiran Arvind Pandit aged about 37 years is the wife of appellant No.1. No reason is given as to why appellant No.2 could not approach concerned advocate for filing appeal. 6. Delay is of huge period i.e. 231 days as discussed above. The said delay is not properly explained by the appellant. We thus find that as delay is not satisfactorily explained, the said delay cannot be condoned. We also find that the appellant have also no arguable case for condoning delay on that ground. Thus application deserves to be rejected. O R D E R 1. Misc.application No.380/2011 for condonation of delay is dismissed. 2. Consequently, appeal stands dismissed. 3. No order as to cost. 4. Copies of the order be issued to both the parties. Pronounced and dictated in the open court on 16.01.2013. | 
