Pramod Kumar vs Vikram Singh & Another

Having heard the rival contentions of the appellant as well as the Insurance Company, it is evident that the impugned judgment was rendered on 10.3.2016 in MACT No. 176/2013, wherein Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) was demanded and whereagainst the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 5,37,000/- (Rupees five lakh thirty seven thousand only) along with 7% interest from the date of presentation of the petition till the payment is actually made.

Copy whereof was applied by the counsel of the claimant (appellant herein) on 18.3.2016. It was prepared and got received to the counsel on the same day. It has been deposed in the affidavit of the claimant filed in support of the delay condonation application. After receiving the copy on 18.3.2016 his counsel informed him telephonically regarding the award. He visited to his local counsel and requested to seek remedy against the judgment and award as the compensation was in much lesser side.

The deponent Mr. Pramod Kumar has not disclosed as to on what date he visited his counsel and why he could prefer this appeal after the lapse of more than six months on 26.9.2016 with the delay of 108 days, after passing of the statutory maximum limit of preferring this appeal.

His counsel has contended that since he was lacking the money and after receiving the awarded amount from the learned Tribunal, he could manage to file this appeal. I think it is not acceptable to this court because only Rupees Ten stamp is needed to file this second appeal That apart, the court has also looked slightly to the merits of the case in order to arrive at the right decision on the delay condonation application. It is noticed that previously the contention of the claimant Pramod Kumar was that he is a labourer (as he deposed in his affidavit 34 kha in the report) but later on by way of some supplementary affidavit 42 kha (which seems to on the legal advice) he disclosed his skilled work of driving a taxi. At the same time, he could not produce any driving licence authorizing him to drive a taxi much less any permit. He deposed in the cross-examination that he used to drive the private Alto car, registered in the name of this father.

I think this all was after thought on his part in order to extract the maximum compensation at the end of the learned Tribunal.

Looking otherwise also, I think this compensation is not in the lesser side. So, in all told, this appeal has no force and thus hereby dismissed on merits as well as on the delay condonation application.