AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 29th November 2010, passed in MVC No. 3386/2008, by he III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-18), (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. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 374 days in filing the Appeal.
The delay of 374 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 3 to 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A.1/2012. In the said affidavit, it is stated that his counsel applied for the certified copy of the judgment and award on 30th November 2010, copy was ready on 25th January 2011 and his counsel received the same on 28th January 2011. He has further stated that the averments made in the memorandum of miscellaneous first appeal be read as part and parcel of the affidavit. He has stated that he has sustained severe injuries in the accident i.e., Anterior dislocation of right shoulder and Type I open fracture both bone right leg mid 1/3rd shaft and has undergone a surgery and he was under treatment for the long period. At the time of accident, he was working as Senior Layout Engineer, ARM Ambadied Technologies Pvt., Ltd., Marathhalli and earning Rs. 67,116/- per month, he was on leave from 27/09/2007 to 19/12/2007 and the Court below considered income only at Rs. 35,325/- per month and granted meager amount of compensation. Since he was suffering with permanent disabilities, he was transferred and deputed to work at the head office at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, with light work for a period of one year. Due to the said reason, he could not meet his present Advocate to give instruction to prefer an appeal in time and not taken any action pursuant to the judgment. Therefore, there is delay filing the above appeal.
It is further stated that if the delay is not condoned, he would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury, on the contrary, no loss or prejudice would be caused to respondents if the delay is condoned.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application, I.A.1/2012.
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 374 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 531 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. 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.1/2012 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 entire 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 anterior dislocation of right shoulder, type 1st open fracture both bone right leg mid 1/3rd shaft and was in-patient for about eight days from 26-09-2007 to 04-10 2010. The Doctor has opined that he has sustained permanent disability of 45% towards right lower limb and 15% disability towards whole body. The Tribunal, having regard to the age and avocation of the appellant, is justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 2,600/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses. Hence, it does not call for interference.
The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and also considering the age, avocation, year of accident, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, surgery undergone, disability assessed by doctor, etc, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,82,600/- for the injuries sustained by appellant. 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.