H.S. Devendra vs ICICI Lombard General and Dr. Manjunath. K.P.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 26th November 2010, passed in MVC No. 8472/2009, by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (for short, ''Tribunal'') on the ground that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced. Along with the appeal, learned counsel appearing for appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2013, seeking condonation of delay of 684 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 684 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, LA. 1/2013. The said paragraphs of the affidavit read thus:

I further submit that, I could not prefer the appeal within the limitation and I am limping and the doctor has advised me to undergo one more operation and it may cost more than lakh rupees and I may have to take rest for about two to three months and thereby I suffer loss of leave. Hence there is a delay in preferring the above appeal.

I submit that, there is delay in preferring the above appeal. If the delay is not condoned I will be put to irreparable loss and injury, on the other hand no hardship of any kind will be caused to the other side. Hence, it is just an expedient to condone the delay for the reasons stated above.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application, I.A. 1/2013. 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 684 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 684 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 except stating the date of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal. No dates and events are forthcoming from the said date 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. 1/2013 is dismissed as misconceived. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.