1.       The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties against the order dated 13.02.2018 of Chhattishgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Case No.2017/27, whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant was allowed.

2.       Alongwith the Appeal, IA/3647/2020, an application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the Appellants.

3.       I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants on IA/3647/2020, application for condonation of delay and also carefully perused the record. The order of the State Commission is dated 13.02.2018 and the Appeal against the same has been filed on 12.03.2020. According to the Registry, after deducting the prescribed limit of 30 days for filing the Appeal, the total delay in the case is 719 days. The Appellants, however, in their application for condonation of delay have not indicated the number of days of delay in filing the Appeal.

4.       Hospitalization of Appellant No.3 for cystoscopy surgery on 05.05.2018 is one of the reasons taken for causing the delay. Learned Counsel for the Appellants admits that medical certificate for the same has not been filed. Cystoscopy way back in May, 2018 should not have led to inordinate delay. Another plea taken by the Appellants is that the records had been taken away by brother-in-law of Appellant No.2, in connivance of his family members, while he was in jail. This led to his not being able to produce certain documents. No evidence has been filed to substantiate this plea also. The State Commission had heard both the Parties before passing the impugned order and nowhere was this ground taken. Similarly time taken in preparing the Appeal and approaching Counsels is another plea taken for the delay, though no exact reasons nor time taken has been furnished. The treatment of their daughter for a hole in the heart at birth has also been taken as a ground for delay in filing the Appeal, not backed by any medical certificate of the treatment. Lastly neurological issues such as erratic seizure and clinical depression also are made grounds for delay. Annexure A-6 is an unattested copy of medical record issued by Dr. Prashik Waghmare, of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Surguja, Chhattishgarh, which appears to be unreliable. The name and address of Appellant No.2 is written in a writing different from the text, as also the luminosity of the ink. It is also seen that the date appears to have been originally written as 20.02.2020 and later corrected as 20.02.2018. No correction, however, was made in the text of the record. It is recorded as H/o seizure on 19.02.2020 at 8.00 am at Raipur. Another certificate has been filed showing that the patient was suffering from Gidoline & tremor, which too is unattested and not on any letterhead of the hospital. All these unattested documents with overwriting All these unattested documents with overwriting make it clear that the Appellants had no proper explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the Appeal.

 5.      Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted