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

          We heard Ms.Rashmi Manne Advocate for the appellant.  None present for the respondent though served.

          We are finding that there is delay of 100 days in filing this appeal.  Therefore, appellant has filed application for condonation of delay No.1601/2009.  It is supported by the affidavit.  In the condonation of delay application and affidavit, it has been mentioned that the appellant was suffering from serious health problem.  He was physically incapable to take steps to file appeal and in the process, there is delay of 100 days in filing this appeal.  In support of his application for condonation delay, he has filed certificate issued by Nagarjuna Ayurvedic Pharmacy and Dr.D. Subhash has given certificate that Mr.N. Doraiah is known diabetic patient under his treatment for severe pain in both knees since July 17, 2009 and has been advised to take bed rest from July 17, 2009 for two months.  Since 100 days delay is there, even if it is assumed that this certificate is true, the appellant who is seeking condonation of delay of 100 days has not at all properly explained delay of 100 days by showing just and sufficient cause as is required under Section 24-A proviso of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  That apart, appellant is Mr.N. Pravin Kumar, but certificate procured is one of Mr.N. Doraiah.  So, there is no nexus between condonation of delay application and sufficient cause mentioned therein and doctor’s certificate issued on record is standing in the name of third person and not pertaining to the illness of appellant herein.  In the circumstances, on such material, we cannot condone the delay of 100 days.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.       Misc. Application No.1601/2009 stands rejected.

2.       Consequently, Appeal No.1263/2009 does not survive for          consideration.

3.       No order as to costs.

4.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.