This is an application for condonation of delay which was caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 11/05/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Complaint No. 297/2008.

          We heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the copy of impugned judgment, appeal memo, copy of other documents and annexure with copy of appeal memo.

 According to Adv. Mr. R.S.Nagpure, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, though the judgment was delivered on 11/05/2009, appellant never received the copy of judgment. The appellant came to know about the impugned judgment only when the notice of the execution proceeding was received on 23/02/2011. There after, the appellant had challenged the impugned judgment and order by preferring revision application before State Commission, on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction. However, the same revision application was dismissed on 08/07/2011 on the ground that it is not maintainable. There after, the appellant has filed appeal along with application of delay condonation on 13/07/2011. Thus, according to learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant there was delay of 518 days, but it was not with any malafied intention. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant has not received the copy of impugned judgment till the date of notice of the execution proceeding. There after Appellant had filed revision application and after dismissal of the revision application, filed this appeal. Thus, his alternative submission is that there was a delay of 101 days only.

It is further submitted by Adv. Nagpure, learned counsel for the appellant, that appellant was also hospitalized for 3 months i.e. from 9 June, 2009 to 2 July, 2009 and there after was advised to take bed rest for two month. In support of this contention, he has also produced medical certificate issued by Dr. Nirmal Jaiswal from Nagpur. On these grounds he has submitted to condone the delay. 

As against the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, Adv. Smt. Deshpande, counsel for the non- applicant, who appeared sue motu in the matter today, submitted that no just and reasonable ground to condone the inordinate delay is given. According to her, the copy of impugned judgment and order was already delivered to the applicant on 20/10/2009 but the applicant though was aware about the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, deliberately applied for duplicate copy on 01/04/2011 and after obtaining it, filed a revision application. According to her, though the impugned judgment was made available to the applicant and though the remedy of appeal was available to him, he filed revision petition just to prolong the execution proceeding etc. On this count, she has submitted to dismiss the application for condonation of delay.

On perusal of the copy of impugned judgment and order, it reveals from the endorsement made by the Registrar of the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, that certified copy of the order was delivered to the applicant on 20/10/2009.

According to Mr.Nagpure, learned counsel for the appellant,  Adv. Mendhe who was appearing on behalf of respondent before the District Consumer Forum, remained absent at the time of final hearing, and, therefore, impugned judgment came to be passed ex parte without hearing the appellant etc. But on this ground, as the complaint was resisted by the opponent/applicant by filing written version etc. the judgment can not be said to be ex-parte. Any how, it is obvious that as the applicant/appellant as well as his counsel were absent on the date of hearing, on hearing the counsel for the non-applicant, the judgment and order came to be passed on 11/05/2009. The applicant/appellant also received copy of the impugned judgment and order on 20/10/2009. Therefore, it is obvious that there was a delay of more than 518 days in preferring the appeal.

Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant /applicant that as the impugned order is without jurisdiction, the applicant had filed revision petition etc. But he could not point out such provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, the Revision Petition came to be dismissed. Hence the ground of filing and pendency of revision petition cannot be considered.

Further it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was hospitalized for the period from 9 June, 2009 to 2 July, 2009 and there after he was required to take bed rest. But even then, there is no explanation for the delay which was caused after discharge from the hospital and after taking rest for two months. It is further submitted that the applicant had lost his memory. He has filed the copy of Medical certificate dated 05/06/2010 in support of this contention which reflects that about 3 to 4 months period was required for recovery. Even if it is presumed that the applicant was required to take rest for 3 to 4 months for recovering from his ailment, after issuing of certificate dated 05/06/2010, no appeal was filed even thereafter. Thus on the face of the record, it appears that  the applicant has made false contention about the receipt of the copy of the impugned judgment and order and there is no reasonable explanation for not filling the appeal within limitation even after recovering the memory. Thus we do not find any reasonable ground to condone such inordinate delay.

          In the result the application is being devoid of any merit stands rejected. Consequently appeal is also rejected. No order as to cost.

 Pronounced on 17/08/2011.