Linga Reddy. T. vs M.V. Atifur Rehaman and The Manager, New India Insurance Co., Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 1st April 2010, passed in MVC No. 2115/2009 by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, (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 cod donation of delay of 479 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 479 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2012. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the appellant has sustained compound fracture of both bones of left leg with comminuted and bleeds formation, which resulted in 20% disability to the left lower limb and 10% to the whole body. But, the Court below has granted meager amount for the same. It is further stated that the appellant is suffering with severe pain in both legs due to osteoarthritis of both knee joints form past one year, which are the late reflections of accidental injuries and he was under continuous follow-up treatment and strict bed rest and due to aforesaid 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 on looking into the certified copies of the Judgment and award, he learnt and advised that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he decided to prefer this appeal and that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the above said bona fide reasons and unintentional and that he has a good case on merits to succeed in the appeal. If the accompanying application is allowed no injury or hardship will be caused to the respondent and on the other hand if the application is not allowed, he will be put to great hardship and irreparable injury.

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 479 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 479 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.

Further, it can be seen that, for explaining the delay, the explanation offered by appellant is the nature of injuries sustained by him and the percentage of disability. The is unconnected and has no relevance for explaining the delay in filing the appeal.

Therefore, 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 gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. After perusal of the same coupled with the nature of injuries sustained by appellant, it is seen that the Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 1,31,000/- under various heads, viz. Rs. 30,000/- towards injury pain and sufferings, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, Rs. 10,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs. 76,000/- towards medical expenses. The same in my view, is just and proper, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the age, avocation, the year of accident, nature of injuries sustained, percentage of disability, etc. Further, it can be seen that the appellant himself has in his cross examination has admitted that the fracture is united and it does not come in his movement and there is no restriction in the movement. Further, no documentary evidence is placed before the Court to substantiate the stand that the fracture sustained by appellant is not united. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the case on hand, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded by Tribunal is commensurate with the nature of injuries sustained by appellant. Hence, interference in the same is not called for. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed both on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits.