Thayamma vs The M.D. of B.M.T.C.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th December 2010, passed in MVC No. 7301/2009, by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City, (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 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 609 days in filing the appeal.

I have heard Shri. R. Chandrashekhar, learned counsel appearing for appellant.

Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the delay has been explained at paragraphs 5 to 7 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. 1/2012. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said affidavit read thus:

"5. I submit that I have lost my beloved son in the accident. I have also lost my husband during pending of my claim petition before the court below. At the time of accident my deceased son was aged about 30 years and he was working as a Electrician with one Mr. Rajesh, licensed electrical contractor, Srinagar and drawing salary a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month. But the tribunal considered only Rs. 4,000/- income per month which is on very lower side and granted meager amount of compensation. I am totally depending upon earnings of my deceased son. Now I am suffering with severe financial crisis. I further submit I am suffering with cardiac problem form past two years, I was under continuous treatment and bed rest. Due to aforesaid reason, I could not able to meet my present advocate to give instruction to prefer an appeal in time and not taken any action pursuant to the judgment. Therefore, there is delay filing the above appeal.

I submit that on looking into the certified copies of the judgment and award, I learnt and advised that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, I am decided to prefer this appeal.

I state that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the above said bona fide reasons and unintentional. I sate that I have a good case on merits to succeed in the appeal. If the accompanying application is allowed no injury or hardship will be caused to the respondent and on the other hand if the application not allowed I will be put to great hardship and irreparable injury. "

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 609 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 5 to 7 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 402 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. 1/2012 is dismissed as misconceived. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.