Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

           While filing A/09/849 there is delay of 103 days in filing the appeal.  Hence Misc. application no.984/09 has been filed to seek condonation of delay.  To contest this application, in para 4 it has been mentioned that applicant was served with copy of the impugned order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum  in March 2009 at the residential address and then she applied for certified copy on 18/5/2009.  So there was two months unexplained delay in even applying for certified copy of the order.  Moreover, it is the argument of Advocate Ms.Suvarna Joshi that her client had shut down the premises where he was running business and on which address firm had sent notice and he had not received the notice, but then acknowledgement placed on record shows that Mr.Jayprakash Paradkar appellant had received notice sent by the Commission at his home address.  That apart, we are not concerned, whether he was served at his home address or at his address of place of business and whether that place of business was closed in 2007 as alleged by Advocate Ms.Suvarna Joshi while arguing before us.  Question is if appellant has received certified copy in March 2009, then what prevented him from applying certified copy and why he took two months for applying.  So these two months are not explained and these 103 days delay is inclusive of this unexplained delay of two months and for which applicant/appellant is seeking condonation of delay.  In the circumstances, we are finding that just and sufficient cause has not been shown to condone delay. Delay is large and cannot be easily condoned.  In the circumstances, we pass following order:-

                                      ORDER

Misc.application for condonation of delay stands rejected.

Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.

Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.