AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 2nd September 2010, passed in MVC No. 8049/2009, by the VIII Additional Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation, 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. 1/2011, seeking condonation of delay of 354 days in filing the Appeal.
The delay of 354 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2011. In the said affidavit, it is stated that, after granting compensation by the Tribunal, the appellant has not contacted his counsel due to his family commitments. He contacted his counsel only recently for enhancement of the awarded amount and came to his knowledge through his Advocate that this appeal ought to have been filed within the limitation period and immediately, applied for issuance of the certified copy of the judgment and award on the same day and the same was delivered. The present application is very much required to condone the delay in filing the present application and non filing of the above appeal in time is not intentional, but the reasons stated supra are not intentional. Further, it is stated that he has a good case on merits and if the application as prayed for is not allowed, he will be put to irreparable loss, injury and hardship.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application, I.A. 1/2011. 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 354 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 354 days in filing the appeal. Whenever there is inordinate delay, the party is bound to explain each days 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. 1/2011 is dismissed as misconceived. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is also dismissed.