N.P.GUPTA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present appeal has been filed against the award dated 14.5.2001 on 13.9.2001. The Registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 30 days. The appeal was not accompanied by the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the same was filed subsequently on 22.2.2002. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.4.2002 notice of the application was ordered to be issued. However, after service, the matter came up for consideration on 6.3.2003, on which time, it was found that the application is completely bereft of particulars of facts. However, learned Counsel for the appellant sought indulgence by seeking adjournment for three weeks. Thereafter, an additional application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on 6.3.2003. A perusal of the subsequent application shows that though the appellant has purported to have explained the delay between obtaining certified copy and filation of appeal to be on account of official proceedings and correspondence. But then a perusal thereof shows that maximum part of the time was consumed by the dealing clerk as appears from paras 5, 11 and 13 of the additional application under Section 5 of the Limitation. Act. Suffice it to say that lethargy of the clerk by simply sitting tight over the matter even after the limitation had run out can hardly constitute any sufficient cause entitling the appellant to seek condonation of delay. It is high time that the appellant should tune up its administration, and get relieved of such lethargic elements so as to show some respect to the legal procedure, and law of limitation.
(3.) BY the way, I have perused the impugned award. The deceased in the present case was 55 years of age, whose dependence has already been assessed on lower side @ Rs 4,000/ - per month for a big family of ten persons out of which, unfortunately, one has expired during pendency of the appeal. An award of Rs. 3,70,000/ - has been made, which can hardly be said to be excessive.;