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

     This appeal has been filed by some of the Opposite Parties who were aggrieved by the judgement passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.229/2008.

     The complaint was filed by Shri Nana Maruti Hanchnale and Sou.Shevant Maruti Hanchnale, both resident of Pimpalgaon, Khurd, Tal.Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur.  They had deposited in three fixed deposits in the name of (1)Shri Nana Maruti Hanchnale, Sou. Shevanta Maruti Hanchnale and Sou.Shevanta Maruti Hanchnale.  Total deposit amount was `24,000/- and they were to get double the amount on maturity as per the terms and conditions of the deposit receipts.  These fixed receipts were tendered on the date of maturity to the Society and its managing committee members who were Opponents in the Forum below did not honour their demand and therefore, these two persons were required to file consumer complaint in the District Forum, Kolhapur. Said complaint was ultimately decided in favour of the Complainant.  Amount as per maturity date is ordered to be refunded with interest @6% per annum, besides cost of `500/- was directed to be paid by the Opponents to the Complainants.

     Aggrieved by this order these three Appellants have filed this appeal.  In filing appeal there is delay of 826 days.  We are not satisfied with the grounds given for condonation of delay in the application for condoning the huge delay of 826 days.  For condonation of delay, strong and sufficient ground is required to be mentioned by the Appellants in the condonation of delay application.  Here virtually no grounds are mentioned to persuade us exercise our discretion in their favour.  Moreover, condonation of delay application there is no signature of Mr.Tushar Pimple, Advocate for the Applicant.  It is simply kept blank.  Place is also not mentioned. Date is also not mentioned.  No Advocate had verified the person making solemn affirmation.  In these circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the huge delay of 826 days in filing this appeal.  Misc. Application No.679/2010 filed in this behalf therefore is required to be rejected.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)          Misc.Application No.679/2010 stands rejected.

       (ii)          Consequently, Appeal No.1243/2010 does not survive for consideration.