Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President

Heard Mr.A.N.Jadhav-Advocate for the appellant.

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 17/3/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in consumer complaint no.316/2008. By this order complaint filed by the complainant/appellant herein was rejected, therefore, original complainant has filed this appeal.

In this appeal, as per appellant there is delay of 109 days in filing the appeal.  However, we have calculated the delay and we find that there is delay of 80 days.  Appellant is under obligation to explain the said delay.  Initially, we issued notices to the respondent/opponent on delay application. Said order was passed on 23/11/2009. Even though respondents are corporate sectors, notices were not served to them and from time to time, adjournment was granted.  However, appropriate steps for service of notice were not taken.  Therefore, we decided to hear the application and find out whether there is sufficient ground to condone the delay. 

In delay condonation application, it is stated in para 3 that copy of order dated 17/3/2009 was received by the complainant/appellant on 19/3/2009 and, then, he applied for the certified copy of the complaint and written statement, which he received on 06/4/2009. He also states that meanwhile he was ill and, therefore, he could not take advice and because of this, delay has been caused. It is an appeal of the complainant and, therefore, complaint copy was with him. If the respondent had filed written statement, copy of the same was also given to the complainant and, therefore, ground stated that he applied for certified copy on 06/4/2009 is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay.  It is to be noted that meanwhile from 19/3/2009 to 06/4/2009 he was ill and, therefore, he could not take the step.  What is interesting to be noted is that certificate which is produced on record shows that it is a certificate of B.A.M.S. doctor.  It is stated in the certificate that patient is O.P.D. and doctor was of the opinion that he is suffering from recurrent renal colitis and lumber spondilities induced chronic backache and advised him for bed rest and treatment.  Prima facie, certificate is false one because he has not given treatment for this disease.  He does not say that what are the tests carried out and how he came to the conclusion that there is recurrent renal collitis. For a lumber spondilities, x’ray is necessary which does not appear to be taken by him.  This was a certificate only managed for the condonation of delay. Assuming for a moment that this certificate is a genuine certificate, this covers the period from 05/5/2009 to 20/6/2009 but the appeal has been filed on 07/07/2009.  So what is explanation for the period 21/6/2009 to 07/7/2009 that is not placed on record.  This is a flimsy and scanty delay condonation application without any proof of sufficient ground.  Misc. application for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.

 In view of rejection of application, appeal stands disposed of.