Ramegowda and Others vs Anantha M.S. and Others

N.K. Patil, J—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th September 2010, passed in MVC No. 160/2009, by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan, (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 appellants has also filed I.A. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 398 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 398 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2012. The said paragraphs of the affidavit read thus:

"3. I submit that I am not aware about judgment and decree, because due to the death of my daughter, I am not in position to come out from that shock due to death of my daughter and meanwhile I am suffering from illnesses and I have take treatment frequently hence I am unable to met my advocate to prefer this appeal.

I submit that meanwhile I am suffering from ill health and jaundice and taking ayurvedic treatment (Nati Vyadya) treatment and also took treatment in the hospital and I am unable to met my advocate regarding the case, and recently when I contacted my advocate then he informed me to prefer the appeal and I have got good case on merits then only I intended to prefer this appeal, and also delay due to my communication gap and suffering from illness and also due to lost the contact number of my advocate, and also due to my illness.

I submit that delay is due to my lack of legal knowledge, communication and illness and for difficult in arranging the funds and I am lost the address and contact number of my advocate hence even attempt made by my advocate to contact me that efforts are vain, hence there is a delay in preferring this petition and after the advice from our advocate to prefer this appeal then I have taken initiative to file this appeal and arrange the funds and contacted the advocate at Bangalore after obtaining all the copies to prefer this appeal hence the delay is due to the reasons stated above if this application is not allowed more prejudice and injustice will caused to me."

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants 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 398 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 3 to 5 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 398 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 appellants have 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 appellants is also liable to be dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants 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 death of deceased K.R. Chaya are not in dispute. Further, it is not disputed that the appellants are the parents of deceased. It is seen that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Mangala Nursing Home, Hassan, where she was in-patient for a period of four days in ICU and died on 28-07-2008.

The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and also considering the age, avocation, year of accident, nature and duration of treatment undergone before succumbing to the injuries, age of the parents, etc. and also the medical expenses including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,56,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, on account of the death of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken into consideration each and every aspect while awarding compensation to the claimants. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellants is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.