Purushotham S. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the common judgment and award dated 1st June 2012, passed in MVC No. 6829/2010, by the 14th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-10), (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.1/2014, seeking condonation of delay of 495 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 495 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A.1/2014. The said paragraphs of the affidavit reads thus:

"5. It is respectfully submitted that my advocate applied for certified copy of the impugned judgment and award on 07/06/2012 and he was able to secure the same on 26.06.2012. Thereafter, I collected the certified copy from my advocate''s office in order to show the same to my well wishers. It is respectfully submitted that my well wishers advised me that the compensation amount has to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per the judgment. Thereafter, I could not contact my Advocate because of my severe ill-health. It is respectfully submitted that I was suffering from severe jaundice and as a result I could not move out of my residence. I was completely bed ridden because of the said ailment for nearly 1 1/2 years. I was able to recover only in the month of December 2013 and thereafter, I rushed to my advocate''s office and enquired with him with regard to the award amount. At that point of time, my advocate informed that the claim against the Insurance Company has been absolved. It is respectfully submitted that I was totally unaware of that part of the order as I am a layman. My advocate also expressed that there is delay 495 days in order to question the impugned judgment and award.

It is respectfully submitted that the delay 495 in filing the above appeal is for the bonafide reasons stated supra and the same is not an intentional one. If the delay 495 in filing the above appeal is condoned, no injustice will be caused to the other side. On the other hand, great injustice will be caused to me if the delay 495 in filing the above appeal is not condoned and at the same time the very purpose of filing the above appeal will be defeated. I have got a very good case on merits."

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 495 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraph 5 and 6 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 495 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 liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.