Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Advocate Mrs.Archana, Pise files Vakalatnama for the respondent, taken on record.  She also files reply to the delay condonation application, taken on record.

This application is for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the impugned order dated 13/04/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.12/2010, Shri Salim Dagdubhai Shaikh & Anr. V/s. Shri Salim Yasin Kavthekar, by District Consumer Forum, Satara.

Delay is of 2 months and 8 days and sought to be condoned stating that the appellant No.1/Shri Salim Shaikh was ill during the period 10/05/2010 to 10/07/2010.  He filed one medical certificate of Krishnamai Medical & Research Foundation, Nikop Hospital dated 20/07/2010 stating that, “Shri Salim Dagadubhai Shaikh was an OPD patient during said period for illness and was advised rest and he was diagnosed for “DMC NTN C Vertigo”.

We heard Mr.P.B. Deokate, Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mrs.Archana, Pise, Advocate for the respondent.

Application is vehemently opposed by opponent/org. O.P.

The ground mentioned is of illness of appellant No.1/Mr.Salim Shaikh, who had taken treatment as an outdoor patient and he was diagnosed as stated earlier.  Said certificate makes it clear that he was never admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient.  Further, diagnosis of the patient is of general nature and the certificate does not speak about condition of patient/Mr.Salim Shaikh which would have not allowing him to pursue his normal life.  Affidavit of applicant/appellant/Mr.Salim Shaikh also does not speak about anything due to which he could not pursue his daily routine or could not take steps to file appeal.  Besides that applicant No.2, who is his wife also could have taken steps to file appeal and nothing has been said about as to why she could not take steps to file appeal in time.  Thus, we find that the application for condonation of delay is made in a routine manner pleading excuse of illness.  We are not satisfied with the reasons mentioned.  Under the circumstances, delay is not satisfactorily explained.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

2.       In the result, Appeal No.928/2010 is not entertained.

3.       In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

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