Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member: There is delay of 29 days in filing the appeal and therefore, both the parties are heard. The statement to explain delay, as appeared in the application, is that delay is caused since the appellant was very ill and so he could not approach his advocate and furnish details for preferring the appeal. There is no statement as to nature of illness, how for it affected his mobility, the periodd of his illness. He also does not furnished the details in the application as to when free copy supposed to be sent by Forum below was received by him. He files along with application a certified copy of the impugned order dated 30/03/2009 which bears a date 06/05/2009 as the date on which certified copy was signed by the Registrar of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (Forum below). It does not bear any other date. On the basis of such date, it is tried to be argued by the Ld.Counsel for the appellant that the copy was received on 06/05/2009. His such submission without making any case to that effect in the application, cannot be accepted. It ought to have mentioned as to when the certified copy i.e. free copy as per the rules and provisions sent by the Forum below, was received by him, said datee is relevant since that is the date the time start running. Besides this one medical certificate alleged to have been issued by Dr.Sharad J. Topkar dated 27/06/2009 record that applicant, aged 55 years was under his treatment from 01/06/2009 for hypertension and he advised him to take rest up to 29/06/2009. Said certificate is not supported by any affidavit. This is important because there is no statement made in the application for condonation of delay about the illness mentioned and nature of illness suffered by the applicant. Hypertension, simplicitor may not incapacitate the person to prosecute his daily course. Nothing has been shown to offer satisfactory explanation that for the alleged reason of illness, appeal could not be filed within time. For the above stated reasons we find that delay is not satisfactory explained. Ld.Counsel tried to rely upon the following judgements which are as under: 1. Basanti Prasad V/s. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board and Ors. passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, 728 (2010 (1) Mh.L.J.) 2. Haryana Urban Development Authority &Ors. V/s. Vipin Kumar & Ors. passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi II (2009)CPJ 115 (NC). 3. Sonerao Sadashivrao Patil & Ors. V/s. Godawaribai S/o Laxmansigh Gahirewar & Ors. passed by State Commission Bench at Aurangabad 2000 (1) Bom.C.R.111. 4. National Insurance Co.Ltd. V/s. Balkhandi Lal Sharma passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi II (2009) CPJ 119 (NC). None of the judgements are applicable in the background and facts of the present case. For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. M.A.no.1079/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. In the result, appeal also stands dismissed. 3. No order as to costs. 4. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. | 
