MAHABALA POOJARY Vs. DINESH AND THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 2nd April 2011, passed in MVC No. 206/2006, by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puttur, sitting as Itinerate at Belthangady, D.K., (for short, 'Tribunal') 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. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 384 days in filing the Appeal.

(2.) THE delay of 384 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2011. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the impugned judgment is passed by the Court below on 2nd April 2011 and the certified copy was applied on 20th March, 2012 and the copy was ready on 3rd April 2012. Thereafter, at paragraph 5, it is stated that the Advocate advised the claimant that there is 384 days time to file the above appeal and that he was in deep financial crisis and after mobilizing the money from his friends and well wishers, he could prefer the above appeal. Therefore, he could not prefer the appeal well in time and he has stated that the said delay in filing the above appeal is not intentional, but the same is for aforesaid reasons and that if the delay in filing the above appeal is not condoned, he would be put to irreparable injury and hardship, but, on the other hand, no hardship or injury would be caused to the other side, if the delay is condoned.

(3.) 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 384 days in filing the appeal 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 delay of 384 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. Further, it can be seen that, at paragraph 5, it is stated that the Advocate advised the claimant that there is 384 days time to file the appeal. The said statement is totally baseless and cannot be sustained at all and it shows sheer non application of mind while drafting the delay application. Hence, in view of non explanation of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, in a proper 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.