Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Ms.Rashmi Manne-Advocate @ Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the applicant/appellant and Mr.Rahul Mehta-Advocate @ Mr.Baliram Kamble-Advocate for the respondent nos.1&2. None for rest of respondents. Misc.application for condonation of delay is filed seeking to condone delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. Reason pleaded for condonation of delay is illness of the mother Lalita Salian. This application is vehemently opposed by the contesting respondents. In the course of arguments, we have taken through the averments made in the consumer complaint, particularly, paragraph 3 of the consumer complaint to the effect that “I was using my vehicle as tourist vehicle and was earning Rs.30000/- per month after meeting my all expenses.” The policy (Exhibit A), was issued in the name of M/s.JV of Siddiqui Transport Co. covering the period 19/12/2007 to 18/12/2008. In a certificate cum policy schedule issued by O.P. insured’s name is shown as that of appellant/complainant and it covers the period of insurance from 00:00 16/12/2006 to 15/12/2007 midnight. the event i.e.accident of the vehicle took place on 27/01/2008. The letter dated 10/6/2008 issued by opponent /Insurance Co. to the applicant/complainant stating that since there was no insurable interest at the time of accident in him they repudiated their insurance claim. Further, our attention is drawn to the agreement to sale the vehicle dated 7/12/2007 and particularly, its clause no.3 which specifically stated that the possession of the vehicle was parted with by the seller in favour of the buyer Manoj Sankpal on the even date. In the impugned order simply referring to the fact that the opponent running it as tourist vehicle, the services of opponent no.1/company were availed for commercial purpose and, thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and, accordingly, complaint was dismissed. After carefully considering the above referred facts along with statement explaining delay made in the application for condonation of delay, we find that pleading ground of illness of mother in the instant case would not offer any satisfactory explanation to condone the delay, particularly, when how the illness of mother incapacitated the applicant/appellant not to carry any of his normal business activity including taking steps to file the appeal and in absence of such material it cannot be stated that explanation offered is satisfactory. It is also tried to be argued on behalf of the appellant that order is per se wrong and, therefore, it is a fit case to condone the delay which is only of few days. Referring to the facts stated above, ground of repudiation statement made in para 3 about using the vehicle for business but offering no explanation further or making statement that the vehicle is being used for self employment and which explanation ought to have been there in the light of statutory provisions since to bring the case in exception or proviso it is the responsibility of the complainant. Further, when repudiation is on the ground that he is no more owner when the accident took place, further explanation ought to have come from the complainant to explain these facts. Documents on record shows that when the possession was parted with, ownership of the vehicle also stands transferred/conveyed. Whether part consideration is remained to be paid or not is irrelevant as far as ownership is concerned. For the reasons stated above we find application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed, since the delay is not satisfactorily explained and also considering the fact that condonation of delay will not serve the ends to do substantial justice. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- ORDER Application for condonation of delay stands rejected. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
