Miss. Solly Lukose vs The Managing Director, BMTC and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 11th July 2012, passed in MVC No. 2073/2009, by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, (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 appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2013, seeking condonation of delay of 250 days in filing the Appeal.

The delay of 250 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2013. The said paragraph of the affidavit reads thus:

I further submit that the Tribunal disposed off the claim petition on 11th day of July 2012, my advocate applied for the certified copy of the judgment and award on 12/07/2012 and the same was obtained on 31/07/2012, my advocate try to intimate me immediately after receiving the judgment, but not able to intimate me due to change of phone number and I myself was contacted during second week of January 2013 and obtained certified copy of the judgment and award went back and discussed with my family, the award made by the Tribunal is lower side. The respondent was not deposited the award amount immediately. In the mean time I suffered financial difficulties, illness. I contacted my advocated during first week of July 2013, to file appeal before this Hon''ble Court. My advocate told that the appeal ought to have filed with 90 days from the dated of obtaining the certified copy of Judgment and award. Then only now the delay. The delay is caused due to the above said bonafide reasons and not intentional one. Thus there is a delay in filing the appeal which is bonafide and not intentional. Hence, this application.

I have a good case on record and this application is not allowed I will be put to loss and injury and whereas no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the other side if it is allowed.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application, I.A. 1/2013.

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 250 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraph 3 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 250 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. No proper explanation is offered from the date of collecting the certified copy of the Judgment on 31-07-2012 till the date of filing the appeal on 16-07-2013. 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.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant on the merits of the case and perused the entire judgment and award passed by Tribunal. After perusal of the same, it is seen that, occurrence of accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. Further, it is not disputed that the appellant has sustained wound measuring 10 x 5 cm. extending from medical malleolus to the lateral malleolus exposing tendor achiho (TA) tendon calcauial bone exposed and X-ray showed fracture of left calcanlum and she was hospitalized for a period of five days. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in awarding Rs. 25,000/- towards injury, pain and sufferings, and Rs. 50,000/-towards medical expenses, including conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges apart from other incidental expenses. Hence, it does not call for interference by this Court.

Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 5,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of income during treatment on the ground that the appellant might have taken bed rest and follow-up treatment at least for a period of four months. The same is just and proper and does not call for interference.

So far as not awarding compensation towards loss of future income, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness and disability is concerned, it can be seen that the appellant has not adduced any evidence in respect of the permanent physical disability nor has examined any Doctor. No piece of paper is produced in this regard. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not awarding any compensation towards the aforesaid heads.

The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and also considering the age, avocation, year of accident, nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment undergone, has rightly awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 95,000/- for the injuries sustained by appellant. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.