Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 23 days caused in filing the appeal against the judgement & order dtd.20.04.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in complaint No. CC/08/145, rejecting the complaint on the ground that it is a frivolous complaint.
2. Heard Mr Linge, Advocate for the applicant / appellant and perused the application under the order, copy of impugned judgement & order, Medical Certificate issued by Dr. R S Sainani of Chandrapur, showing that the applicant was advised for bed rest from the period 25.04.2009 to 15.06.2009.
3. Before hearing Ld. Counse for the application, non-appliant Gajanan S Sen was served with notice, which was sent by RPAD. Postal acknowledgement is also on record. However, non-applicant did not turn up. Therefore, we have no opportunity to hear him.
4. The record reflects that undisputedly, the impugned judgement was passed on 20.04.2009 and its copy was supplied to the applicant on 27.04.2009. Therefore, the applicant ought to have filed the appeal on or before 26.05.2009 but he has filed this appeal alongwith this application on 19.06.2009. Thus, there was delay of 23 days.
5. Mr Linge, Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that the delay which caused in preferring the appeal was due to illness of applicant. According to him, the applicant was suffering from Heart Disease with Hyper Tension with Diabetes and he was advised for bed rest for the period from 25.04.2009 to 15.06.2009 but except medical certificate no other medical record is produced to show that the applicant was medically checked-up on 25.04.2009 by said Doctor. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Medical Certificate. Moreover, a bare glance at Medical Certificate, it reflects that Doctor was not aware about the exact date when the patient was medically checked-up by him and therefore, he has changed the date and made overwriting. It reflects that initially the date was shown as 25.05.2009 and subsequently, by overwriting, it is shown as 25.04.2009, which creates suspicion.
6. Further though the applicant was advised for bed rest, he could have contacted his Advocate by visiting his office personally or on phone and could have given instruction on filing the appeal in time. But it appears that no such efforts are made by the applicant. Therefore, it will have to be inferred that the applicant was not interested in filing the appeal in time. Thus, on any count, there being no just & sufficient reason to condone the delay, it cannot be condoned.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
1. Application for condonation delay stands dismissed.
2. Consequently, the appeal is rejected.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
Delivered on 29.09.2011.
