B.S. Madhu vs Managing Director,KSRTC

N.K. Patil, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 28-12-2010 passed in MVC No. 10 of 2009, by the I Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation. Along with the appeal, appellant has also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2013, seeking condonation of delay of 582 days in filing the appeal.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for appellant.

The said delay of 582 days in filing the appeal has been explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit dated 2-8-2013 accompanying the application, which reads thus:

That after passing of the impugned judgment and award on 28-12-2010, when I went over to meet my Advocate, I was told that the compensation amount had not yet been deposited. Although I was advised about the remedy of appeal before this Hon''ble Court, I could not go over to Bangalore as I had to arrange for the necessary funds and also eke out a living. It is when I met my Advocate in connection thereof I was advised to prefer an appeal before this Hon''ble Court but I was also told that the same would entail expenses. Since I also had financial problems due to my loans, it is only after arranging for the amount that I could go over to Bangalore and arrange for filing of appeal. It is only recently that the amount came to be deposited on 1-12-2011 and withdrawn it. In the meanwhile I was suffering from viral fever and was bedridden for over two months. Hence the delay.

I am told that there is a small delay in filing the above appeal but the same is not due to any other reason other than the one stated above. I would be put to irreparable hardship and injury if the delay were to be not condoned on the other hand the respondent would not be put to any hardship. Hence the application.

After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and after perusing the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it emerges that, there is an inordinate delay of 582 days in filing the appeal. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily by the appellant by assigning cogent and valid reasons. The explanation offered is in a very casual manner. Even the appellant has failed to give dates and events as to on what date he has applied for the certified copy of the judgment, on what date he has received the same and on what date, he has instructed his Counsel to file this appeal. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the said delay. As there is an inordinate delay of 582 days in filing the appeal, the appellant is bound to explain each day''s delay in filing the appeal by assigning cogent and valid reasons. Much credibility cannot be given to the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the said delay. Hence, in view of non-explanation of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, in a satisfactory manner, we are of the view that delay cannot be condoned nor the appellant has made out a good case to condone the delay. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I.A. No. 1 of 2013 is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is also dismissed.

Learned Counsel Sri. K.S. Bharath Kumar, is permitted to file memo of appearance for R1.