OM RICE MILLS vs BANK OF BARODA

-APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where they had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

VERY briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the complaint were that the complainant approached the respondent for grant of loan which was sanctioned after which the complainant obtained the power connection and purchase mechanical and electrical appliances but the second respondent did not disburse the funds to purchase the main machine causing loss to the appellant/complainant. It is in these circumstances a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and taking into consideration that the recovery suit has already been decreed against the complainant and in favour of the respondent, the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before us with a delay of 243 days. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the point of delay of 243 days in filing the appeal before us. Admittedly, the appellant got the certified copy of the order dated 15.12.2005 only on 20.1.2006 and this appeal has been filed on 7.2.2007. The application for condonation of delay has been filed. The only defence taken is, that the appellant was unwell and had to go through various medical tests and diagnosis persistently and was bed-ridden for months together for which reliance is placed upon the medical prescriptions.

We have gone through this material and there is no disputing the fact that the first prescription, which has some over-writing, is dated 13.3.2006. Since it is admitted position that the appellant got the certified copy of the order on 20.1.2006, and keeping in view the fact that time for filing an appeal is 30 days, hence normally the period to file the appeal would have expired on 19.2.2006; this had not been filed and there is no explanation forthcoming as to what happened between 19.2.2006 and 13.3.2006, i.e., the date for which medical prescriptions have been brought on record, preventing the appellant to file the appeal in time. We have also seen the prescriptions; nowhere bed-rest has been advised. The only certificate on record is of one Professor of Department of Kaya Chikitsa Institute of Medical Science which is dated 19.12.2006, states as follows: "This is to certify that Mr. R.N. Pandey, H/o Smt. Manju Pandey, R/o A-52, Brija Enclave Sundarpur, Varanasi has been suffering from Hypertension, Angina, Depression since Feb. 2006. He is under my treatment and advised to continue the treatment and attend O.P.D. regularly at 15 days interval. He is also advised to avoid strains, exercise and mental tension."

KEEPING in view the fact that there is no prescription even from this Professor relatable to Feb. 2006, and there is no other material brought on record that patient was under treatment for hypertension, angina and depression since Feb. 2006, this certificate needs to be rejected with the contempt it deserves. We have no hesitation in observing that this certificate has been procured on 19.12.2006 to explain the delay - which we find totally unacceptable. Since the period of filing appeal had already expired before the first date of prescription, i.e., 13.3.2006, and in the absence of any bed-rest advice by any Doctor, we are not in a position to rely on the explanation of the appellant that she was bed-ridden. Even in normal course, if one goes for medical tests, that does not mean that he/she will have no time to attend on his/her personal work.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we find that the delay of 243 days has not been sufficiently explained, hence the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, in view of which the appeal also stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.