Kum. Chandrakala vs Smt. K. Padmavathi and The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant-claimant is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 09/02/2011 passed in MVC No. 274/2005, by the Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short). Along with the anneal, appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 336 days in filing the appeal.

The delay of 336 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 4.9.2012 filed in support of I.A. 1/2012 stating that, in view of the accident and injury suffered by her, she could not attend her education and even after passing the award due to suffering and as she was taking treatment, she was unable to instruct her counsel to prefer the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager. Further, it is stated that, after obtaining the copies of the evidence and documents produced before the Tribunal, she has instructed the counsel to prefer the appeal and accordingly, this appeal is filed. It is further stated that in view of the above circumstances, she could not prefer this appeal in time. The delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and not malafide or intentional one on her part and she has got good case on merits and if the said delay is not condoned, she would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury, on the contrary, no loss or prejudice would be caused to respondents if the delay is condoned. Therefore, she 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, it emerges that, there is an inordinate delay of 336 days in filing the appeal The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. Even she has failed to refer as to what is the date of the judgment, on what date she has applied for the certified copy of the judgment and on what date she has obtained the copy of the same. 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 336 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. The reasoning given in the affidavit is in a casual manner and it does not inspires confidence of this Court and therefore, much credibility cannot be given to the same. 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. Taking all these factors into consideration, 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.