Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 471 days, which was caused in preferring the appeal against the judgement & order dated 01/09/2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Wardha in consumer complaint No. CC/08/106.
2. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the application under order and written notes of arguments submitted by Adv. Mr. Joshi for the applicant/appellant and also the copy of medical certificate and the copy of impugned judgment & order.
3. Undisputedly there was 471 days delay in filing the appeal. Mr. Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that the appellant had taken steps to file the appeal immediately after the receipt of the copy of impugned judgment and order by engaging Adv. Mr. Havelikar from Wardha but Mr. Havelikar has not filed the appeal. It is further submitted that the appellant contacted Adv. Mr. Havelikar from time to time but no positive reply was given. Therefore, lastly the appellant received back case papers from Adv. Mr. Havelikar and then he handed over the case papers to him (Adv. Mr. Joshi). It is also submitted that the applicant/appellant was under impression that Adv. Mr. Havelikar has filed the appeal in time but no appeal was filed for such a long period. Moreover, it is submitted that as the appellant was ailing due to backache he could not take back the case papers from Adv. Mr. Havelikar and file the appeal in time. In support of this contention the applicant/appellant has also produced the Xerox copy of medical certificate issued by the Dr. Mr. Prabhakar Kakade of Hinganghat which reflects that the applicant/appellant was having backache and he was under treatment for the period of 19/09/2009 to 22/12/2010. In short, according to Mr. Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant there was such delay due to negligence on the part of Adv. Mr. Havelikar only. It is submitted that the applicant/appellant was not negligent and therefore, he should not suffer due to negligence on the part of Adv. Mr. Havelikar. It is submitted to condone the delay.
4. Per contra Mr. Vora, Ld. Counsel for the non-applicant/respondent has strongly resisted the application and submitted that there is no just and reasonable ground to condone the delay. According to him all the averments made in the application are false and contradictory and the medical certificate produced by the applicant is also not reliable. He has submitted to dismiss the application.
5. On perusal of application under order, it manifests that the averment about giving instruction to Adv. Mr. Havelikar for filing the appeal are vague and imaginary and there is no substance on record to support this contention. If really Adv. Mr. Havelikar was engaged by the applicant/appellant for filing the appeal, no reason is disclosed as to why Adv. Mr. Havelikar has not filed the appeal. Therefore, in the absence of any reason such bare contention of the applicant/appellant can not be accepted.
6. As far the contention about his illness is concerned, though the applicant/appellant was ailing due to backache as shown in the medical certificate, it is not the contention that he was bedridden and could not contact his counsel Mr. Havelikar. On the contrary, his contention is that he has contacted Mr.Havelikar from time to time. Therefore, medical certificate produced on record on the ground of illness of the applicant/appellant, can not be considered for condoning such inordinate delay.
7. For the forgoing reasons we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Misc. Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal bearing No.A/11/31 is rejected.
2. No order as to cost.
Dated:- 12/04/2012.
ay
