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

          This appeal has been filed by org. complainant No.2 against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Raigad in consumer complaint No.70/2006 decided on 01/02/2008.  By the impugned judgement and award, Forum below directed the respondent/builder-developer to make certain changes in the premises which are now in possession of the appellant and to execute Conveyance Deed and to form co-operative Society and also to pay `7,000/- to each complainant for mental harassment.  Not satisfied with the inadequate compensation granted, org. complainant No.2 has filed this appeal.

          In filing this appeal, there is delay of 292 days.  In the condonation of delay application No.2297/2008, delay is sought to be explained by simply mentioning that the appellant received copy of the order on 14/02/2008.  Counsel who was supposed to prepare appeal and appear on behalf of appellant could not perform his duty.  Subsequently, when he received papers, during that period he, his wife and his son suffered an accident and he is under treatment till.  After till, there is full stop.  This was according to the applicant a ground due to which the applicant was not able to file appeal in time.  In the process, there is delay of 292 days in filing this appeal.  This condonation of delay application was filed with the affidavit sworn before the Registrar.  But, today, appellant filed another affidavit in support of condonation of delay application dated 06/08/2010 which is nothing but reproduction and reaffirmation of the same grounds mentioned earlier in the condonation of delay application.  Delay of 292 days is neither at all explained by the applicant in any manner nor was supported by the affidavit.  We are aware that for the some time, Advocate Shri Kondhalkar was suffering from accident and he was hospitalized for 45 days but, this delay is far more than 45 days and there is no just and sufficient cause coming out from the mouth of the applicant herein to explain the condonation of delay of 292 days.  We are of the considered view that delay is not explained properly and satisfactorily by the applicant and therefore, this application for condonation of delay will have to be rejected.  Hence, we pass the order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Misc. Appl. No.2297/2008 for condonation of delay stands rejected.

2.       As such, Appeal No.1630/2008 does not survive for consideration.

3.       No order as to costs.

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