Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
In spite of notice of today’s date of hearing is given to both the parties by publishing notice on Notice Board as well as intimating through the website, applicant/appellant and his counsel are absent. At that stage, Advocate Mr.Santosh Patil, when the case was called out, appeared and submitted that he was instructed by the appellant and he had sent communication to the Advocate on record to give ‘No Objection’ to file his Vakalatnama which is yet to be received. Therefore, in the morning session, he submitted that he will be filing undertaking to file Vakalatnama and asked us to keep the matter back for some time. Accordingly, the matter is kept back. When the matter is again called out in the afternoon session, Advocate Mr.Santosh Patil submitted that no undertaking from him would be given. Therefore, issue as to the appearance of Advocate Mr.Patil ends there.
Since the appellant remaining absent, we prefer to scrutinize the application for condonation of delay and the appeal preferred.
There is delay in filing appeal and therefore, there is application for condonation of delay. Duration of delay is not specified, but it must be over one month i.e. 36 days as could be seen from the record. The application for condonation of delay is not supported by any affidavit of the applicant/appellant. Furthermore, the reasons mentioned are quite vague. Once the copy of order was in the hands of the appellant, there was no necessity to wait for other documents i.e. complaint, written version, evidence, etc. since that must be the part and parcel of the brief of the applicant/org. complainant. We are not satisfied with the reasons given and thus, finding that the delay is not at all satisfactorily explained, we reject the application for condonation of delay.
By way of abundant precaution, we also went through the impugned order. There is hardly anything which could be said to have been established in terms of medical negligence vis-à-vis deficiency in service against the respondent/org. opponent. The consumer complaint was rightly dismissed by the Forum. From this point of view, it is not the case where to do the substantial justice, the delay could be condoned.
For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Misc. Appl.No.1059/2003 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
2. Consequently, appeal No.831/2003 is not entertained and stands disposed off.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 7th July 2011.
