Sandesh Mogaveera vs Pradeep Acharya and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th June 2011, passed in MVC No. 803/2006, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura, (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 LA. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 308 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 308 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, LA. 1/2012. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the appellant has preferred the appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by Fast Track MACT, Kundapura in M.V.C. No. 803/2006 dated 27-06-2011 and he has challenged the said order on the ground of quantum. Due to the said accident, he sustained disability and as he could not go to work and he fell into deep financial crisis, he had to borrow from private financiers for his livelihood. He is still under financial problems. Hence, he could not make arrangements for filing the appeal. Now, with great difficulty, he has arranged the money from his well wishers and relatives for filing the appeal and due to these reasons, eh could not file the appeal in time. Further, it is stated that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional and caused beyond his control for the reasons stated above and if the accompanying application is not allowed, he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss and on the contrary no hardship would be caused to the respondents.

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 308 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered is omnibus in nature. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 308 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. In the entire affidavit, not even a single date is forthcoming explaining the delay. 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 devoid of merits. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is also dismissed.