G.T. Manjunatha vs Chunchegowda

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 24th July 2007, passed in MVC No. 1686/2005, by the Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, (for short, ''Tribunal'') on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and liable to be enhanced.

Along with the appeal, learned counsel appearing for appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2014, seeking condonation of delay of 2314 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 2314 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2014. The said paragraphs of the affidavit read thus:

"3. I submit that I suffered fracture of both bones of left leg and due to the said injury, even after the discharge, I was under medical treatment. I submit that I have expended huge amount for the treatment. I submit that I am poor and as I was under severe financial difficulty, I could not approach this Hon''ble Court in time. I submit that after arranging the money, I have approached my local advocate during the second week of January 2014, to file the appeal before this Hon''ble Court and my local counsel advised me to approach an advocate at Bangalore and thereafter, I approached the advocate at Bangalore and presented the above appeal. I submit that in the said circumstances, there is delay is caused to present the above appeal. I submit that the delay caused in presenting the above appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. Hence the accompanying application.

I submit that if the accompanying application is allowed no hardship or injury would be caused to the other side. On the other hand serious hardship would be caused to the defendant if the application is not allowed."

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application, I.A. 1/2014.

After going through the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I am of the considered view that the inordinate delay of 2314 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 3 and 4 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 2314 days in filing the appeal. Whenever there is inordinate delay, the party is bound to explain each day''s delay in filing the appeal by setting out the dates and events. No proper explanation is offered from the date of collecting the certified copy of the Judgment till the date of filing the appeal. In the absence of proper explanation for condoning the inordinate delay, no credibility can be given to the statements made in the affidavit. Hence, in view of non explanation of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, in a satisfactory manner, I am 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. 1/2014 is dismissed as misconceived. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is also liable to be dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant on the merits of the case and perused the grounds urged in the appeal and also the judgment and award passed by Tribunal. After perusal of the same, it is seen that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further, it is not disputed that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries such as fracture of lower middle 3rd shaft of left tibia and arthritis and was inpatient for about 49 days from 20-04-2003 to 07-06-2003. The Doctor has opined that he has sustained 40% functional disability towards left lower limb and 20% disability towards whole body. The Tribunal, having regard to the age of the appellant, has rightly adopted the multiplier of ''17'' and rightly assessed the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-, considering the year of accident and also his avocation and awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 1,22,400/- towards loss of earnings. In fact, the whole body disability assessed and adopted by Tribunal at 20% is on the higher side considering the functional disability at 40%. However, having regard to the age, avocation and the nature of injuries sustained, I do not want to interfere with the same.

Thus, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, by assigning valid and cogent reasons at paragraphs 15 to 17 of its judgment, has awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings; Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs. 1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 4,900/- towards expenses incurred as inpatient, Rs. 1,000/- towards expenses for follow up treatment, Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment and Rs. 1,22,400/- towards loss of future earnings. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.