(Delivered on 09/03/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING  MEMBER.

1.         Appellant – Mr. Ram Madhaorao Halde has filed the present  appeal feeling aggrieved  by the  impugned order dated 19/07/2017 passed by the learned District Consumer  Commission, Yavatmal. Along with the appeal the appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.  Applicant /appellant has taken  a plea that  the   impugned  order was  passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Yavatmal  on 19/07/2017 and  the applicant   has received the copy of the said order on 14/08/2017.   Applicant  ought to  have filed the appeal  on or before 13/09/2017. The applicant  has contended  that  he could  not file the appeal  as his wife namely Smt. Shila Ram Halde was suffering  from old age  and was also suffering  from  diseases like  high blood pressure  and Sugar   and so there was  delay of 17 months and 15 days  in preferring the appeal. Applicant has contended that it  is necessary  to condone the delay in the  interest of justice  and so the present  application for condonation of delay.

2.         Adv. Mr. Gangalwar  is present  for the Non applicant /respondent   and filed  reply  to the  application for condonation of delay and strongly resisted   the  application for condonation of delay.  Non applicant /respondent  has taken a plea that  the application for condonation of delay was not bonafide in nature  as the present  appellant /applicant  Mr. Ram Halde was taking active part before  the State Commission, Nagpur  in one appeal  bearing No. A/17/152. Applicant was conducting the said appeal on behalf of one Mr. Achut Koratkar who was appellant in the said appeal.  The non applicant/respondent  has therefore contended that  the  present  application  for condonation of delay is not at all  bonafide  in nature and deserves to be rejected.  

3.         I have heard, applicant /appellant  in person on the point of  condonation of delay.  Applicant/appellant has submitted that he could not present the application as his wife was suffering from High Blood Pressure and Sugar. The applicant has also placed on record copies of prescriptions dated 11/08/2017, 11/10/2017, 30/03/2018 and 30/12/2018. On  the basis of these prescriptions  the applicant  has contended  that  his wife  was suffering  from illness and  therefore he could not file the appeal within  the stipulated  period. However, the record itself would go to show that the impugned order was passed on 19/07/2017 and certified copy of order was received by the applicant on 14/08/2017. It was necessary on the part of the applicant to explain the huge delay of 17 months and 15 days in filing the present appeal but applicant  has not  placed on record  any medical certificate  which  could  go to show  that  the wife of the applicant  was either  bedridden  or was suffering  from illness for long period.  Applicant  has mainly  relied  upon  the copies of prescriptions dated 11/08/2017, 11/10/2017,30/03/2018 and 30/12/2018 but these prescriptions, in my view will not be    sufficient  to show that  the present  applicant  was  unable  to move due to illness of his wife  or that the  wife of the applicant  was hospitalized for long period  of time.  It is needless to mention that the applicant has to give satisfactory explanation for the huge period of 17 months and 15 days for filing of the appeal.  I feel that the copies of prescriptions on record are not at all sufficient to explain the period of 17 months and 15 days delay in filing the appeal. Applicant has also not filed any Medical Certificate to that effect. On the contrary  the learned advocate for the non applicant/respondent  has submitted that  the application  filed by the applicant  was not bonafide in  as much  as the present  applicant was actively  taking  part as an authorized representative  on behalf of the appellant  Mr. Achut Koratkar  in another  appeal  bearing No. A/17/152. In my view, even if, this aspect is not taken  into consideration the  explanation  given  for condoning the  delay cannot be termed  as satisfactory  so as to  condone  this long delay and  so the application  filed by the applicant   is not tenable  in law.  As such I pass the following  order.

ORDER

i.          Application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.

ii.          No order as to costs.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.