1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1776 OF 1991 Gayabai W/o.Kishanrao Sawant PETITIONER VERSUS Sk.Abdulla S/o.Sk.Ibrahim and two others RESPONDENTS Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Bharaswadkar, advocate for respondent no.1 to 3 absent when called out. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 30/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and District Judge, Parbhani in MACP No.4/1990, dated 18th December, 1990 by which the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay was rejected. In this matter, rule was granted on 13/06/1991 with returnable date. 2. Today when the writ petition is came up for final hearing, heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Also perused the record 2 and the impugned order under challenge. It is alleged that the minor son of the petitioner got injured in the accident which took place with the vehicle of Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. After the accident, the minor son was admitted in the hospital where he was expired on 14/04/1989. It is alleged by the petitioner that due to shock and mental agony, she is unable to approach the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for the claim of compensation for demise of her son. It further appears that later on she filed an application for condonation of delay, which was numbered as M.A.C.P. No.4/1990. By the order dated 18/12/1990, application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and District Judge, Parbhani, by observing that even though it is alleged by the petitioner that due to mental agony and the treatment, she was unable to move the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, and there is delay of more than 8 months to submit the application, but in support of her contention, she has not produced any medical evidence before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. It is also observed in para no.4 of the order under challenge that apart from the petitioner, husband of the petitioner, who is the father of deceased minor was also residing with the petitioner and no reasons or explanation is coming forthwith about non filing of the claim by the husband of the petitioner, who is also father of the deceased minor. On careful perusal of the present writ petition, it reveals that there is no explanation as to why the husband of the petitioner has not moved the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to file the claim for compensation. 3 3. Now the petitioner has approached this Court, and annexed the medical certificate available which is annexed alongwith the writ petition. The copy of this medical certificate find place at compilation page no.17. On clear perusal of this certificate, it indicates that it was issued on 06/02/1991. Unnumbered para no.2 of this certificate read as “She has been advised to take the treatment, rest from 16/04/1989 to 04/05/1990.” Two facts are clear from this certificate. First is that this certificate do not bear any outward number as to when the certificate was dispatched by the Medical Officer concerned, and the second is the certificate is also silent whether the patient was taking treatment as indoor patient or outdoor patient or was under the treatment of the Doctor, who has given the medical certificate and last the certificate is silent that the person to whom the certificate is issued was treated by the Doctor, who has given this Medical Certificate about the treatment. It is clear from the last unnumbered para of the certificate that the petitioner has been advised to continue the treatment and avoid excessive thinking of the past events. In the premise, the fact is clear that the Medical Officer who has issued the certificate has not treated the person, i.e. the petitioner to whom the certificate is issued. In the premise, the authenticity and genuineness of the certificate itself is doubtful and if on the basis of this certificate, now the petitioner is praying for condonation of delay and to allow the application which was rejected by the Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and District Judge, Parbhani, vide his order dated 18/12/1990, find no fault in the impugned order under challenge, as well as the grounds 4 now available are also devoid of any merit. In the premise, rule discharged. Writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp1776-91