PARVATHAMMA, ANITHA. M AND ARUN. M Vs. DIRECTOR, KGID AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th March 2011, passed in MVC No. 5304/2007, by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH -17), (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 appellants has also filed I.A. 1/2013, seeking condonation of delay of 665 days in filing the Appeal.

(2.) THE delay of 665 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2013. The said paragraphs of the affidavit read thus:

(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 665 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 2 and 3 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 665 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. The reasons assigned do not inspire the confidence of this Court. 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. 1/2013 is dismissed as misconceived. Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant is also liable to be dismissed.