(Delivered on  25/08/2021)

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

1.         Appellant Nos. 1&2 has preferred the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 15/04/2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.  Along with the appeal the appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay. Record shows that the present appeal and application for condonation  of delay  came to be filed  in the year  2010 and was pending  on  the  file.  Record further  reveals  that  the application for condonation of delay was  fixed for  hearing  on several  occasions  from time to time but the appellants/applicants as well as their advocate  remained absent  prior  to lockdown and finally  the matter was kept for hearing  on 18/06/2021 after  Covid-19 Pandemic but  appellants  remained  absent.

2.         Today  also when the matter  is taken up  for  physical  hearing  appellants and  their advocate  both  have remained  absent though  the matter is very old . No further time can be granted and the matter is taken up for hearing.

3.         Coming to the application for condonation of delay the applicant No. 1 has contended that he was land owner and applicant No. 2 has developed the flat scheme.  The respondent  had filed the consumer complaint  against  the present  appellants  and same was finally decided  on 15/04/2006 but  appellant  No. 1 was aged more than 80 years  and appellant No. 2 was suffering  from hepatitis and so could not file the appeal.  It is clear that the   impugned order under challenge was passed in the year 2006  and present application for condonation of delay came to be filed in the year 2010 beyond the period of limitation.  Applicant  has taken  a plea that  he was suffering  from  hepatitis  but no medical certificate  is filed on record and also  the same  cannot justify the delay of  three years in filing  the  appeal. No satisfactory  reasons  are given.  The appeal is therefore, hopelessly barred by limitation.  Application for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed . Consequently, the appeal filed by the  appellant  Nos. 1&2 also  stands  dismissed.