Sri. Chowdappa vs Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd. and Sri. Ravi. B.R.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 9th March 2011, passed in MVC No. 7427/2008, by the IV Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (SCCH-6), (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. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 380 days in filing the Appeal. The delay of 380 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 3 to 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2012. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the above appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 09/03/2011 passed in MVC No. 7427/2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH-6) and that he is working as a mason and due to the injuries sustained in accident, he was under treatment for six months and that he is the only earning member of the family and he could not earn any income during the period of his treatment. On the other hand he had to go for hand loan for the expenditure for his treatment and even after the six months of treatment, he was not able to do the mason work as he used to do earlier and was totally under financial crisis. Therefore, he could not approach his Advocate to prefer the appeal against the said judgment and award. The delay in filing the above appeal is for the reasons stated above and not due to the negligence. Further, it is stated 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.

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 380 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 380 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. 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 misconceived. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is also liable to be dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant 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 injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further, it is not disputed that the appellant has sustained two injuries, viz. left frontal bone hair line fracture and displaced comminuted fracture of right clavicle and was in-patient for some period. The Doctor has opined that he has sustained permanent disability of 27.39% towards left upper limb and 9% disability towards whole body. But, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the entire material available on file, has rightly re-assessed the whole body disability at 4%. The Tribunal, having regard to the age and avocation of the appellant, is justified in assessing the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- and awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards injury, pan and sufferings, Rs. 21,600/- towards loss of future income, Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment period, Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses, including conveyance and nourishing food, Rs. 1,000/- towards loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness, and Rs. 3,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. Hence, it does not call for interference.

The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and also considering the age, avocation, year of accident, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, surgery undergone, disability assessed by doctor, etc, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,05,600/- for the injuries sustained by appellant. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.