JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 are present. Respondent No. 3 has not appeared despite service. He be proceeded against ex parte. The State Commission passed the following order on 22.8.2013: “Mr. Amit Tungare, Advocate present for the applicant/appellant. Mrs. Anita Marathe, Advocate present for non-applicant/respondent No. 1 files reply to the delay condonation application. Ms. B. Pooja, Advocate proxy for Mr. P. Y. Shankar, Advocate present for non-applicant/respondent No. 3. She files Vakalatnama of Advocate Mr. P. Y. Shankar as well as her authority letter issued by Advocate Mr. Shankar. She does not want to file reply to the delay condonation application. Mr. A. S. Vidyarthi, Advocate present for non-applicant/respondent No. 4 files reply to the delay condonation application. None present for non-applicant/respondent No. 2. Heard all the parties on the point of condonation of delay. Applicant/appellant-Mr. Arun Ramchandra Surve is a senior citizen of 72 years old. His affidavit shows that he is a patient of cervical spondylitis. He has filed document of medical treatment to prove his ailment. It is a common knowledge that spondylitis is recurring disease which requires continuous medical treatment. Considering the ailment and pleas of applicant/appellant, delay does not appear to be intentional. While doing justice, much importance cannot be given to the technicalities. Application for the condonation of delay deserves to be allowed. Delay of 78 days is hereby condoned. Parties to bear their own costs.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards para 4 of his reply to application for condonation of delay, wherein it is stated that medical papers produced by the petitioner pertain to the year 1989, 1991 and of 1997 but he has not produced a single document concerning the date fixed before the State Commission. Secondly, the petitioner took steps to obtain a copy of the impugned order on 1.8.2012 from the District Forum and the appeal was filed on 11.11.2012. 3. However, there is delay of 78 days. The petitioner is an old person who is present before this Commission. He is aged about 72-73 years old. Although, he is suffering from spondylitis, yet, it is not clear why did he come to this Commission from Bombay. Some negligence on the part of the complainant stands established. It is also transpired that the petitioner was Public Prosecutor for 35 years and the learned counsel, Shri Ashim Sood, whom, he engaged in this Commission, is his junior. He had accompanied him to look after his health. The State Commission should have imposed some costs while accepting the condonation application but the State
Commission did not do so. Likewise this Commission has not awarded any litigation charges to the complainant at the time of admitting the case. This fact equals the grievances of both the parties. The grounds recorded by the State Commission are correct and there is a small delay in filing the first appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner submits that he is suffering from spondylitis till now. The petition is without merits, therefore, the same is dismissed without costs. The State Commission to expedite the case. | 
