Order No. 3. Dt. 17.11.15

Mr. Jagannath Bag, Hon’ble Member

            Record is put up today for passing order on the petition for condonation of delay which was taken  up for hearing on 03.11.2015.

            Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants submitted that though the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Forum below on 22.01.15 in CC No. 422/2014 and though the certified copy of the said order was obtained on 02.02.15, the appeal against the impugned order could not be filed as the Appellant No.2 had been suffering from various ailments. Further, it was submitted that the male baby of the Appellant No.3 was also suffering from various ailments since January 2015 and he met with an accident as a running fan fell down on his body for which he sustained severe injury and has been under treatment and under the supervision and care of his mother, being Appellant No. 3 round the clock. In such circumstances, the Appellants could not contact their Ld. Advocate till 04.09.15 for preparation of the Appeal. Medical papers have been filed as proof  in support of treatment of the Appellant No.2 and the son of the Appellant No.3 which would show that Mr. Rafique had been under treatment of Dr. T.A. Ghazali and the son of Appellant No.3 under treatment of Dr.Tapas Kumar Das. There was no intentional delay in filing the appeal. If the delay is not condoned , the Appellants would suffer irreparable loss .There is a strong chance  of success in the instant appeal if the merit of the appeal is taken into consideration.

            Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent submitted that the plea taken by the Appellant in regard to condonation of delay in filing the appeal is vague and not substantiated with convincing documents. No day- to- day explanation for cause of delay has been filed. The medical papers do not show that the Appellants had any genuine cause in filing the appeal within the statutory period of 30 days as provided under Section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act or around that period. There is no merit in the appeal as the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Forum below keeping in view all relevant facts. The prayer for condonation of delay needs be rejected with dismissal of the appeal.

            The petition for condonation of delay has been perused together with the medical papers submitted along . Ld. Advocates appearing for both parties have been heard.

            It is a fact that the appeal has been filed against the impugned order after a long delay of 225 days including the statutory period of 30 days. The cause of delay is said to be the ailments of Rafique Ahmed being the Appellant No.2 as well as the ailment of the male baby of Appellant No.3.

            It appears from the medical prescription of Mr. Rafique Ahmed that he visited the doctor on 14.03.15 and thereafter which means his ailment as claimed did not start before 14.03.2015,  though the delay in filing the appeal started from 23.02.2015. Again, the medical paper in support of Sanan claimed to be the male baby of Appellant No. 3 shows that he was attended by Dr. Tapas Kumar Das first on 13.06.15 and thereafter. Such medical papers do not speak for unavoidable circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal. There is every reason to believe that inspite of full knowledge of the impugned order which was of grave nature calling for payment of refund of Rs.6,00,000/- together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and payment of penal damages of Rs. 25,000/-. It appears that the Appellants in the present case were neither diligent nor sincere about filing of appeal against the impugned order. The reasons for delay do not appear to be satisfactory . Hence, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.