Tribunal grants appeal delay due to chicken-pox explanation

The Tribunal granted condonation of a 27-day delay in filing an appeal due to the petitioner's explanation of being affected by chicken-pox. Despite disagreement among members, the majority supported condonation based on the lack of medical evidence, traditional treatment norms, and the applicant's timely filing post-recovery. The decision was influenced by the absence of a counter-affidavit from the Department and reference to medical literature stating minimal treatment for chicken-pox. The appeal was directed for disposal on its merits following the condonation approval.

---

---

Issues:
Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought condonation of a 27-day delay in filing an appeal due to being severely affected by chicken-pox. The Member (Judicial) accepted the explanation, considering the circumstances and lack of medical treatment tradition for chicken-pox in the region. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was directed for disposal on merits. However, Member (Technical) disagreed, emphasizing the lack of medical evidence, traditional treatment norms, and the applicant's failure to file the appeal promptly after recovery.

The main point of contention was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. Member (Judicial) supported condonation based on the applicant's affidavit, lack of counter-affidavit from the Department, and reference to medical literature stating no treatment is usually required for chicken-pox. In contrast, Member (Technical) rejected condonation due to insufficient evidence of complications, delay explanation, and failure to file the appeal promptly post-recovery.

The disagreement was resolved in favor of condonation based on the majority view supporting the applicant's explanation of suffering from chicken-pox. The lack of a counter-affidavit from the Department and reference to medical literature influenced the decision to condone the delay. The file was sent back for further action, and the condonation application was disposed of in line with the majority decision.

---