Master Akshay represented by his father as a Natural Guardian Sri Kumara vs Suresh Gowda and The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Claimant in MVC. No. 5860/2007 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, (SCCH-11) has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein. This appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 654 days. Hence, application in IA.I/2011 is filed seeking condonation of said delay. Heard the counsel for appellant on IA. I/2011. Perused the affidavit filed in support thereof. On going through the same it is seen that claimant who is minor as of now was aged 12 years as on the date of accident. The claim petition filed by him in MVC. No. 5860/2007 on the file of MACT, Bangalore, seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in road traffic accident came to be allowed on 25.10.2008 by awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,07,700/- with interest at 6% pa., from the date of petition till deposit. In said accident, claimant suffered head injury, fracture of mid 1/3rd shaft right humorous with excessive callus formation, fracture of lower 1/3rd right forearm and other minor abrasions over the body. It is stated that all the injuries are grievous in nature. It is further stated that after the accident claimant was taken to Kerala for Ayurvedic treatment and for one year treatment was provided. Thereafter, since claimant did not recover from the disabilities, he continued treatment in Bangalore. It is stated that in the meanwhile guardian of claimant suffered jaundice and he was taking Ayurvedic treatment and for that he was required to undergo rest for a period of one year. Hence, he could not move about anywhere. Subsequently, he has consulted his counsel and he was instructed to prepare and file appeal as compensation awarded is inadequate.

On going through the affidavit and the contents therein, this Court is not convinced with the reasons stated therein. Though in the affidavit it is stated that for a period of one year after the accident claimant took treatment in Kerala, from which day to which day he was treated in Kerala is not stated. It is also stated that the guardian of claimant is also said to have suffered jaundice, when he suffered jaundice, for how long he was treated for that, when he recovered from the same and when he contacted his counsel to give necessary instructions for filing of appeal are not forthcoming.

Admittedly, there is 654 days delay which comes to almost two years. Therefore, it is seen that in the affidavit it is stated that one year is spent in Kerala for Ayurvedic treatment of claimant and another one year for treatment of guardian of claimant for the problem of jaundice. The manner in which it is stated clearly discloses that the entire exercise is just a ruse to get over the inordinate delay of 654 days, which does not stand to reason. It is seen that even though there is a vain attempt on the part of claimant to explain the same in a camouflaged way without giving dates, when they went to Kerala for treatment, when the guardian suffered jaundice, from whom he took treatment and from which date to which date he took treatment are all suppressed to get over the problem of delay. In any event, on going through the entire affidavit and the arguments submitted by the counsel for appellant, it is seen that guardian of appellant has miserably failed to explain 654 days delay to the satisfaction of the court. However, before deciding the application for delay judgment impugned is also'' looked in to. On going through the same it is seen that for two injuries i.e., fracture of right forearm and head injury compensation awarded in a sum of Rs. 4,07,700/- in itself is more than just and proper. Hence, even assuming the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for consideration, there is no ground to enhance the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In that view of matter, application filed seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.