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

This appeal is filed by seeking enhancement in compensation and certain releifs not granted by Additional District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thane (Forum below in short) while deciding consumer complaint no.36/2007 by its order dated 30/01/2008.  By the said judgment the consumer complaint was partly allowed and opponent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- with interest from 10/03/2005.  Opponent was further directed to give to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards the costs.  Not satisfied with this award, the complainant himself has filed this appeal.

        In filing the appeal, there is delay of 816 days.  No good and sufficient cause has been made out in application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit.  In fact, there is affidavit of appellant no.1 and 2 they have simply verified the condonation of delay application and Mr.Ashwini Kuamr Pathak, Advocate, High Court has stated in his affidavit that appellant approached him in the month of  February, March 2008 to file appeal before State Commission against the order dated 30/01/2008 passed by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thane (Additional).  He further stated on affidavit that his wife expired in the month of April,2008 and due to her sad demise, he could not continue with his profession for at least more than two years. However, we are not satisfied with the cause given by Adv.A.Pathak.  In fact, his wife allegedly expired in month of April,2008 whereas according to his own statement, opp.party appellant approached him in the month of Feb-March.  For filing appeal, one month time is available and within one month the said advocate could have filed appeal.  The wife of advocate expired in the month of April,2008 and he stated that after sad demise of his wife, he was not in legal profession for two years and he stated that he had misplaced the file of case papers.  The explanation furnished by the appellant is not satisfactory one.  Even if one loses its wife, one who is Advocate will not be out of profession for period of two years as stated by Adv.Pathak in this application.  Affidavit of Adv.Pathak failed to explain delay of 816 days.  Thus, for want of just and sufficient cause, we are inclined to reject the application for condonation delay.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                        :-ORDER-:    

1.           M.A.no.347/2010 for condonation of delay stands rejected.  

2.           Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration.

3.           No order as to costs.

4.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rule.