AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 24th July 2010, passed in MVC No. 200/2007, by the I Additional District Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mangalore, D.K., (for short, ''Tribunal''), seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, on the ground that the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition. Along with the appeal, learned counsel appearing for appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2011, seeking condonation of delay of 405 days in filing the Appeal.
The delay of 405 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2011. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the impugned judgment is passed by the Court below on 24th July, 2010 and the certified copy was applied on 10th August, 2010 and the copy was ready on 23-08-2010.
Further, it is stated that her Advocate advised her that there is 405 days time to file the above appeal and that she was in deep financial crisis and after mobilizing the money from her friends and well wishers, she could prefer the above appeal. Therefore, she could not prefer the appeal well in time and she has stated that the said delay in filing the above appeal is not intentional, but the same is for aforesaid reasons and that if the delay in filing the above appeal is not condoned, she would be put to irreparable injury and hardship, but, on the other hand, no hardship or injury would be caused to the other side, if the delay is condoned.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant and perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application, I.A. 1/2011.
After going through the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the inordinate delay of 405 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 405 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. Further, it can be seen that, at paragraph 5, it is stated that the Advocate advised the claimant that there is 405 days time to file the appeal. The said statement is totally baseless and cannot be sustained at all and it shows sheer non application of mind while drafting the delay application. Hence, in view of non explanation of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, in a proper 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. 1/2011 is dismissed as misconceived.
However, in the interest of justice and equity, I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. After perusal of the same, it is seen that the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the Tribunal on more than one ground, mainly on the ground that the appellant herself has in cross examination, in unequivocal terms, admitted that the motor cycle number stated in the complaint is correct and therefore, it proves beyond doubt that the Motor cycle No. KA-19/R-8096 is not involved in the accident and the motor cycle No. KA-19/U-7281 is involved in the accident and the later aspect was suppressed by the appellant in preferring the claim petition and false claim is made as against the second respondent who is insurer in collusion with the first respondent. The said finding of fact recorded by Tribunal is after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. Hence, on merits also, the appellant has not made out a case for interference. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed both on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.