PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application for condonation of delay which is caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 20/03/2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Akola in CC No.212/99.
We heard counsel for both the sides and perused the application under order. and copy of the application dated 6/10/2010 which was given by the applicant to the District Consumer Forum for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and order.
According to Mr.Lahoti, learned counsel for the applicant, the delay of 62 days was in preferring appeal, whereas learned counsel for the Non applicant, there is a delay of more than 6 months. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that though as per the record of the District Consumer Forum, the copy of the order was sent to the appellant by post, it was not received and, therefore, on 6/10/2010 the appellant applied for copy of the order and received it on 13/10/2010, and, thereafter, filed the appeal on 14/1/2011, whereas according to the learned counsel for the non-applicant, copy of the order was sent to the applicant on 10/5/2010 and it was sent on the address given by the appellant and as such, it must have been received by the applicant, but he falsely suppressed this fact and applied for the copy on 6/10/2010. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the non applicant, there was delay of more than 6 months in preferring appeal and such inordinate delay, in the absence of any just and reasonable ground can not be condoned. On all these grounds, it is submitted to dismiss the application.
On perusal of office endorsement on the certified copy of the impugned order, it reflects that the copy of the order was sent to the applicant by post Under Certificate of Posting on the correct address of the appellant given in the complaint. Therefore, it will have to be presumed that it must have been received by the appellant. Hence we find much force in the submission made by learned counsel for the non applicant.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was delay in filing appeal as dean of the applicant dental college as well as its President were ailing. In support of this contention, the applicant has produced medical certificate dated 12/11/2010 issued by Dr.Agashe which reflects that Shri Ashutosh Goenka who is the Dean of the said college, is suffering from Diabetics, BP etc. but it does not reflect that he was bedridden. Therefore, the same can not be considered for condonation of such delay. Morover this certificate reflects that the dates have been changed by overwriting which also creates suspicion about its genuineness. Not only this, but it also reflects that initially, the President was directed for rest for 3 months and, by over writing, it is changed for 2 months. Therefore, this certificate is being suspicious, can not be considered.
Apart from the above facts, even if the Dean of the college was ailing, the Secretary or President who were party to the proceeding could have filed appeal within time after receipt of copy of the judgment and order but no explanation is given as to why they did not took steps to file appeal in time. However, learned counsel for the applicant made feeble attempt to explain that President of the said college was also ailing, but no medical certificate to that effect is produced. Therefore, the same statement also can not be considered. Even if the President was ailing, the Secretary could have filed the appeal, but no explanation is given as to why he did not file the appeal in time. Again learned counsel for the applicant made feeble attempt and tried to explain that the Secretary of the college being the Son of the Dean was attending his ailing father. But as there is no record to show that the President of the college was ailing, question of looking after him by his son i.e. the Secretary does not survive. There being no satisfactory and reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay, the same can not be condoned. Hence we decline to condone the delay and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
- Consequently, the Appeal is also rejected.
- No order as to cost.
Delivered on 11/10/2011.
