Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                We had issued notice to all the parties but Appellant preferred not to remain present.  Advocate Mr.Santosh Patil is present for Respondent No.1.  None is present for Respondent No.2.

(2)                We perused the appeal memo.  We are finding that the builder developer has filed this appeal against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.784/2003. 

(3)                In filing appeal there is delay of 60 days.  The District Forum passed the order on 28.04.2004 and appeal has been filed on 28.07.2004.  The Appeal should have been filed on of before 28.05.2004.  Thus there is clear-cut delay of 60 days in filing this appeal.  The ground mentioned is that partner of the Appellant firm is a patient of ‘diabetic mellitus’  and he suffered injuries to his right leg and foot  which was under plaster since 10.01.2004 and therefore, Appellant could not file the appeal in time. 

(4)                Since, Appellant is a partnership firm the another partner could have filed the appeal within limitation.  So, ground taken by one of the partners that he was suffering from diabetic injury is not sufficient to condone the delay.  Certificate is also appearing to be bogus because he had collected certificate on 22.07.2004 and Doctor mentioned in the certificate that Mr.S.B. Tamshetty was under his treatment for diabetic mellitus from 10.01.2004 to 20.07.2004. So, certificate procured is for six months whereas application filed for seeking condonation of delay is of 60 days. So, whole application is appearing to be bogus and concocted one and on the basis of such application and medical certificate we cannot condone the delay of 60 days.  What is pertinent to note is the fact that order passed by the District Forum has been passed ex-parte against the Appellant.  Thus he had not contested the complaint in the District Forum.  In the circumstances, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)              Misc.Application No.1743/2003 filed for condonation of delay stands rejected.

       (ii)              Consequently Appeal No.1330/2004 does not survive for consideration.

     (iii)              Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 12^th October, 2011.