Sri. Abdul Wajid vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 21st September 2010, passed in MVC No. 740/2008, by the Senior Civil Judge, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunigal, (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. 2/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 876 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 876 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 2 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 2/2012. In the said affidavit filed by the appellant, it is stated that he has filed the above numbered appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 21-09-2010 in MVC No. 740/2008, awarding a total sum of Rs. 1,56,800/- with interest 6% per annum and he has suffered a.) Deep lacerated Rt. Leg 6 4 inches. Exposing the bone, (X-ray shows fracture tibia and fibula), b) Tenderness Rt. Shoulder, (X-shows acromioclavicular subluxation), c) Tenderness Rt. Side of the chest, (X-ray shows fracture of 8th, 9th rib), d) Loosening of upper 3-incisor tooth, e) Loosening of lower 3-incisor tooth, f) Laceration maxillary region, g) Laceration upper lips, h) Laceration forehead, i) Laceration Rt. Hand, j) Abrasion Rt. Knee, k) Abrasion Rt. Great toe. As per the opinion of the doctor said injuries No. 1 to 5 are grievous in nature. He was suffering from vital infection and became weak and unable to walk, and that very recently the insurance company has deposited the award amount as a result he was unable to meet the Advocate at Bangalore to file the appeal and due to this accident, he has become handicap and he cannot walk without the help of others, and with the help of others he met his Advocate at Bangalore about two days back and handed over necessary paper to him and that he is not conversant with the procedure of filing this appeal as he is living in a remote village. In the circumstances he is unable to meet his Advocate to file this appeal in time. After consulting his well wishers and elders, they have instructed him to file this appeal and hence there is a delay of 876 days in filing this appeal.

It is further stated that, the delay caused is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to bona fide reasons stated above and that if the delay is not condoned, he would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury, on the contrary, no loss or prejudice would be caused to respondents if the delay is condoned.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application, I.A. 2/2012.

After going through the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, we are of the considered view that the inordinate delay of 876 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 2 to 5 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 876 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. Therefore is no mention as to when the appellant applied for the certified copy of the judgment and award, when the same was ready, when he contacted the Advocate, when he came to know that he has to file an appeal, etc. Except the date of the judgment and award, not even a single date is forthcoming from the explanation offered for condonation of delay of 876 days in filing the appeal. In the absence of any such dates in the explanation offered, 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, we are 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. 2/2012 is dismissed as misconceived. Consequently, me appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, we have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, to find out as to whether there is any scope for enhancement of compensation. It is seen that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, and after critical evaluation of the same, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,800/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident, i.e. Rs. 60,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, Rs. 21,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges, Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness in life and Rs. 46,800/- towards loss of future income on account of disability. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has taken care of each and every aspect of the matter and having regard to the age, avocation, nature of injuries sustained, disability, nature and duration of treatment under gone, medical expenses etc. has awarded just and reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits.