Santhosh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 8th February 2013, passed in MVC No. 8071/2011, 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 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 259 days in filing the Appeal.

I have heard Shri. P. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the delay has been explained at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Affidavit and the same may be accepted, delay may be condoned, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and the appeal be heard on merits.

I have gone through the Affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2014. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said affidavit read thus:

"2. I submits that, I had filed the MVC No. 8071/2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, (SCCH-10), Bangalore City, for claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained in Road Traffic Accident, occurred on 02/08/2011 at about 9.15 AM. While I was going as rider in a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-05-EJ-8889, near Puttappanadoddi-Village, B.M. Road, Channapatana-Tq, Ramanagar-Dist, very carefully, catiously and observing traffic rules, at that time a Toyota Fortuner Car bearing Reg. No. KA-05-MJ-4183, driving by its driver same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against to me, another and our motor cycle. Due to impact I sustained fracture injuries and said claim petition is disposed on 8th February 2013 and awarding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with 6% interest and cost.

I submits that I have unable to contact our advocate due to domestic problem, when I had approached the advocate to file the appeal for enhancement of compensation by that time. There was delay for filing the appeal. I submit that I has got very good case on merits. The delay of filing of the appeal is condoned none of the respondents will be put to any hardship. At the same time if this accompanying application is not allowed, I will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss. "

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and 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 259 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 2 and 3 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 259 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.