1.      This is an application for condonation of delay of 173 days which was caused in preferring appeal against the judgement & order dtd.15.05.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal in consumer complaint No.CC/09/350.

2.      We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides, perused the application under order and py of impugned judgement & order.

3.      Undisputedly there was delay of 173 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted by Mr B V Chavhan Ld. Counsel for the applicants / appellants that there was such delay in filing the appeal as the officers of the non-applicants had given assurance to pay decretal amount with interest. However, it is submitted that the applicant No.1 Smt Surekha was ailing for 8 days and moreover, applicant No.4 Sunita had gone to Delhi and she was not aware about the passing of impugned judgement & order. However, he has submitted that the applicants are being poor persons, were not in a position to bear the expenses of filing the appeal and therefore, they were waiting for receipt of decretal amount from the non-applicants. But as the non-applicants avoided to pay decretal amount and filed counter appeal, they realised that the respondents gave false assurance and thereafter, applicants filed the appeal alongwith this application for condonation of delay. On all these grounds, it is submitted to condone the delay.

4.      Per contra, Adv. Mr Baisani for the non-applicants / respondents submitted that there is no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay. It is denied that the non-applicants had given any assurance to pay the decretal amount to the applicants. It is submitted to dismiss the application.

5.      Considering the submissions made by Adv. Mr Chavhan for the applicants, we find no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay of 173 days. 

6.      If really the non-applicant would have given any assurance to pay the decretal amount with interest, there could be no reason for the applicants to file the appeal. Though the applicants are poor persons and they were not in a position to bear any expenses for filing the appeal, it cannot be accepted that they would have filed the appeal by receiving the decretal amount from the non-applicants. 

7.      As far as second submission of Adv. Mr Chavhan for the applicants that applicant No.1 was ailing, is concerned, according to him applicant No.1 Smt Surekha was ailing for 8 days only. He has also produced medical certificate, which reflects that the applicant No.1 was ailing for the period from 29.01.2011 to 07.02.2011. But there is no explanation for non-filing of the appeal prior to 29.01.2011.  Hence, though the applicant No.1 was ailing for the said period, it cannot be accepted that applicants were prevented from filing the appeal in time. 

8.      As far as the third submission of Adv. Mr Chavhan for the appellant that applicant No.4 was residing at Delhi and she was not knowing about the passing of impugned judgement & order, is concerned, when the other applicants No.1 to 3 were well aware about the impugned judgement & order, the same cannot be accepted.

9.      Apart from the above facts, when applicant No.2 was available throughout the period after passing the impugned judgement & order, he could have filed the appeal in the absence of other applicants. 

10.    Thus considering all these facts and submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants, we find no just & reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay of 173 days. Hence, we are declined to condone the delay and pass the following order:-