STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH, KOLHAPUR Miscellaneous Application No. MA/24/231 in Appeal No. A/24/458 (Arisen from the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratnagiri dated 5/03/2024 in CC No. 74/2019)

Rohit Nandkumar Pathare R/o A/p Khambad, Pawas, Tal. Dist. Ratnagiri …. APPLICANT Vs.

1) Mahesh Govind Navathe Prop. Navathe Infrastructure & Consultant, R/o Jear Damala High School, Tal. & Dist. Ratnagiri

2) Pravin Vijay Oswal R/o House No. 1753, Teli Aali, Ratnagiri, Tal. & Dist. Ratnagiri ....RESPONDENTS BEFORE :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, President Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member Present : Adv. Sandesh Shahane for the Applicant Adv. R.R. Wayangankar for the Respondent No.2.

ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member

1. The present miscellaneous application is filed by the appellant, who is original complainant in the original complaint. The applicant has contended in the present delay condonation application that the appellant had filed complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratnagiri. The consumer complaint was decided as on 5/03/2024. The applicant came to know about the order and accordingly, he obtained certified copy of the order on 19/03/2024. Considering the date of the order and obtaining the copy of the order, the applicant has failed to file the present appeal within stipulated period of time as contemplated in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The applicant has contended that applicant is serving in a private limited company. His old aged father was very ill. He had given more priority for his father’s recovery and good health. His younger girl was also suffering from high grade fever. Meanwhile, the applicant himself was suffering from high grade fever and low immune health. Therefore, there is a delay of 101 days caused in filing the present appeal. The appellant has no ill intention or negligence or casual approach for filing the present appeal. Hence, he prayed that the delay of 101 days may be condoned.

2. The notices were issued to the Respondents. Respondent No.2 appeared and filed reply on the delay condonation application contending that the copy of the impugned order was ready on 6/03/2024. The applicant has not given any explanation as to why the order was not taken till 19/03/2024, when it was ready on 6/03/2024. The appellant has knowingly undercounted the days of delay. There is a delay of 116 days from the date the applicant had received the copy of the order till the date of filing of the appeal. Hence, there is a delay of 129 days from the date of the order. It is also contended that the delay is not properly explained and no evidence has been produced by the appellant regarding the contentions raised in the delay condonation application. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed with costs.

3. The other respondent was called upon to appear by way of paper publication. However, he failed to appear. Hence, we heard the Adv. for appellant and Adv. for Respondent No.2 on delay condonation application.

4. After hearing both the sides on delay condonation application and also on perusal of the contentions of the delay condonation application as well reply filed by the Respondent No.2 and the citations relied upon by both the parties, we come to the conclusion that the following order should be passed with reasons given below :

REASONING

5. It is admitted fact that alongwith delay condonation application, no medical certificate is produced by the appellant/applicant pertaining to the illness of his father or his daughter or himself. Due to the lack of prima-facie evidence pertaining to the sickness of the father of applicant, daughter of applicant and applicant himself, the contentions raised regarding sickness cannot be relied upon. Simultaneously, the period of illness i.e. from which date, he was sick or got fever, those dates have not been mentioned in the application. The pre