SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is an application seeking restoration of complaint after condoning the delay.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint is that the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner, that when the complaint was posted to 31.7.2007 his wife and himself were laid up due to chicken-Guniya and so they could not appear nor inform their counsel, that therefore the complaint was dismissed and that there is no willful latches and so this complaint may be restored to file after condoning delay.<br /> The respondent filed objection seriously opposing the petition. The respondent filed version in this case as early as 25..7.2006. After that there were nine postings to adduce evidence till 110.1.2007. Since the complaint did not adduce evidence nor filed affidavit on 10.1.2007 and the complainant and counsel remained absent and the complaint was dismissed. R.P.5/2007 was filed to restore the complaint. Since the petitioner and counsel remained absent on 27.7.2007 and 31.7.2007 the dates to which the petition was posted and as there was no representation RP.5/2007 was also dismissed. The present application is filed about 7 months after that. There is no sufficient ground to restore the petition and so respondent prays to dismiss this petition.<br /> The point for consideration is whether there is sufficient cause to condone delay.<br /> Point:<br /> Heard both sides. The contention of the petitioner is that on 31.7.2007 the complainant and his wife could not attend the Forum as they were laid up due to chicken Guinya. It is the further case that they could not even contact their counsel also due to the severe disability. As a matter of fact no medical certificate is produced to show that the petitioners were seriously laid up on 27.7.2007 or 31.7.2007and thereafter about 7 months. By any stretch of imagination it cannot be believed that both of them were so ill even to inform their counsel at least over telephone for the last 7 months.<br /> <br /> This complaint was originally dismissed on 10.1.2007 due to non appearance of the complainants and their counsel. R.P. 5/2007 filed to restore the complaint was also dismissed on 31.7.2007 as the petitioner and their counsel were absent on 31.7.2007 and as there was no representation. From the conduct of the complainants it is obvious that they are not at all vigilant negligent in prosecuting the case. The definite case of the opp.party is that the intention of the complainant is only to harass them and that there is no bonfides. As pointed out earlier this is a case wherein the complaint as well as the earlier RP were dismissed due to non appearance of the complainants and their counsel. It cannot be believed that both of them were laid up so seriously that they could not inform their illness to their counsel and seek adjournment at least over telephone. It is also to be noted that no medical certificate is produced to support their contention of illness. As argued by the counsel for the opp.party the reason stated for condoning the delay cannot be considered as a sufficient cause in the absence of medical certificate . Hence we are not inclined to condone the delay and allow the application. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result the petition is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008