AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Claimant in MVC No. 1332/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. VII, Bijapur aggrieved by the Judgement and Award dated 11.04.2012, in so far as it relates to the quantum of compensation has preferred this appeal, 213 days after expiry of the period of limitation, accompanied by I.A. No. 1/2013 dated 28.01.2011 to condone the delay. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the deponent none other than the appellant submits that though the judgment and award was passed on 11.04.2012, nevertheless was unable to contact his counsel due to "some personal reasons" and that only in the month of October, 2012 contacted the counsel who informed him about the disposal of the petition and immediately instructed him to apply for a certified copy, which though-,obtained on 16.10.2012 due to the injuries suffered and family reasons could not go over to Gulbarga to file the appeal. In addition, it is stated that in the month of February, 2013 the deponent came over to Gulbarga to file the appeal, whence there was some communication gap between himself and his counsel leading to the delay. The principle governing condonation of delay and the requirement of furnishing material particulars and dates when considered by the Apex Court in Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, observed thus:
The applications filed for condonation of delay and the affidavits of Shri Sirsikar are conspicuously silent on the following important points:
(a) The name of the person who was having custody of the record has not been disclosed.
(b) The date, month and year when the papers required for filing the first appeals are said to have been misplaced have not been disclosed.
(c) The date on which the papers were traced out or recovered and name of the person who found the same have not been disclosed.
(d) No explanation whatsoever has been given as to why the applications for certified copies of the judgments of the trial Court were not filed till 23.8.2010 despite the fact that Shri Sirsikar had given intimation on 12.5.2003 about the judgments of the trial Court.
(e) Even though the Corporation has engaged battery of lawyers to conduct cases on its behalf, nothing has been said as to how the transfer of Shri Ranindra Y. Sirsikar operated as an impediment in the making of applications for certified copies of the judgments sought to be appealed against.
The applicant said to be a Neuro Surgeon practicing at Bijapur and managing a hospital, having returned an annual income of more than Rs. 14,00,000/- for the year 2008-2009 while the accident occurred on 06.12.2008, being highly qualified professional, the explanation that he was not aware of the disposal of the case and though the certified copy was obtained on 16.10.2012 was unable to file the appeal till 28.10.2013 is unacceptable. In the absence of material particulars and relevant dates, it is needless to state that the applicant failed to show sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court. Negligence, inaction and lack of bonafides is attributable to the applicant. I.A. No. 1/2013 is accordingly rejected and sequentially the appeal dismissed.