Mr. Shivan vs Kalandar and Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 29th February 2012, passed in M.V.C. No. 545/2008, by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puttur, Itinerate at Sullia, D.K., (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. 1/2013, seeking condonation of delay of 267 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 267 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2013. The said paragraphs of the affidavit read thus:

I state that the case was disposed off on 29/02/2012, I had applied for certified copy on the earlier occasion and sent it for filing of appeal in bus parcel services, that was not received by advocate. Hence present copy has been obtained.

I state that my advocate has advised me that there is days time to file the above appeal. I state that I was in deep financial crisis. Hence, after mobilizing the money from my friends and well-wishers, I could prefer the above appeal. Hence, I could not prefer this appeal for enhancement well in time. I state that the delay infilling the above appeal is not intentional, but for the aforesaid reasons. I state that the delay in filing the above appeal is not condoned; I will be put to irreparable injury and hardship. On the other hand, no prejudice or hardship is going to be caused to the other side by allowing the accompanying application.

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 267 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 4 and 5 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 267 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. Therefore, it does not inspire the confidence of this Court. 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.