- (1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants-claimant against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2014 and decree dated 29.3.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,Court No.3, Faizabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 131 of 2000 (Noor Ali Versus Devendra Pratap Singh and another), after expiry of period of limitation with a delay of one year, two months and nine days.
(2.) Explanation given in the affidavit accompanying delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act,1963 is very vague and it may be useful to reproduce all seven paras as under: "1. That the deponent is the appellant No.1 and also authorized for doing pairvi on behalf of appellant No.2 himself in the above noted case and is well conversant with the facts deposed herein after. 2. That the M.A.C.T. Faizabad passed a judgment and decree on 27.03.2014 and thereafter the deponent has applied for certified copy which he receive on 09.02.2015 because his son was died and he was shocked for many days. 3. That the deponent is a very poor person after received the copy, the deponent became ill as he came into the grip of viral fever. 4. That after receiving the copy in the April and May 2015 the appellant concerned to his district counsel Mr. B.P.Shukla was advised me (deponent) to approach to High Court for enhancement of amount of award. 5. That the deponent after getting well and managing the financial requirement came to Lucknow in June 2015 but High Court was closed at that time. 6. That he again approach to the High Court in July and managed the same amount and fee of counsel and handed over to the papers and order to his counsel. 7. That the delay of one year and 23 days occurs under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, which is neither deliberate nor intentional and as such the delay in filing the instant F.A.F.O. is liable to be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merit."
(3.) The explanation is very vague and, in our view, there is no explanation what to say of satisfactory explanation as to why the matter was not taken with due earnest and reasonable expediency.;