Mallikarjuna vs Raveesha and Others

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The claimant in MVC No. 888/10 on the file of MACT, Hassan, has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. This appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 778 days. Hence, an application in I.A. 1/13 is filed seeking condonation of the same. Heard the learned counsel for appellant. Perused the affidavit filed in support thereof. On going through the same, it is seen that claim petition was allowed by judgment and award dated 29.07.2010. Since the claimant felt that substantial grounds are there to seek enhancement of compensation, this appeal is filed and the delay in filing is stated to be physical disability, as the claimant was a coolie and he was not in a position to do coolie work, he is dependent on his wife for his livelihood. Further, he was in Bellary in search of his job along with his wife, because of that, there was delay and it is also stated that lack of knowledge in preferring the appeal in time is also one of the reason in contacting his Advocate immediately. It is further stated that when he met trial court Advocate recently, it was suggested that compensation awarded is on the lower side and he can file an appeal. Thereafter, the present appeal is filed.

On going through the entire affidavit, the reason for delay of 778 days is not properly explained. Even before disposal of this appeal on condonation of delay, the trial court records are looked into. On going through the same, it is seen that wound certificate is tampered, the discharge summary of the Hospital is tampered and the nature of injuries appears to be meddled with. In spite of all these things, this Court is unable to understand how the Tribunal has awarded compensation without looking into the materials available on record. In any event, this Court is informed that the award is satisfied by the Insurance company. In that view of the matter, this Court find no justifiable grounds to admit the appeal. Even if delay is condoned and appeal is taken up for hearing, on the basis of fraudulent documents which are available on record, the appeal for enhancement of compensation cannot be considered. Accordingly, I.A. 1/13 is dismissed and consequently, appeal is also dismissed.