Yusuf vs Janardhana, The Manager, The National Insurance Co., Ltd. 3rd floor, High Lane Plaze M. G. Road Kasargod, P.K. Hassain Kutty and The Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant-claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16/06/2010 passed in MVC No. 1320/2006, by the II Additional District Judge and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). Along with the appeal, appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 471 days in filing the appeal.

The delay of 471 days in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant at paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 13.2.2012 filed in support of I.A. 1/2012 stating that, his Advocate has advised him that there is time to file the appeal. Further it is stated that, he was in deep financial crisis and after mobilizing the money from his friends and well wishers, has preferred the appeal and hence, there is a delay. Further, it is stated that, the said delay is not intentional one and he has got good case on merits and if the said delay is not condoned, he would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury, on the contrary, no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the respondents if the delay is condoned. Therefore, he prayed to allow the application.

I have perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application. After going through the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I am of the considered view that there is an inordinate delay of 471 days in filing the appeal and the said delay 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 said delay. As there is an inordinate delay of 471 days in filing the appeal, the appellant is bound to explain each day''s delay in filing the appeal by assigning cogent and valid reasons. Much credibility cannot be given to the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the said delay. 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 liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is also dismissed.