S. Thimmappa vs Kumara. M.A.

N.K. Patil, J.—This is a claimant''s appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.12.2012 passed in MVC No. 877/2011, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II and Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, (for short ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation.

Along with the appeal, appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2014, seeking condonation of delay of 431 days in filing the appeal.

Heard learned counsel appearing for appellant.

The delay of 431 days in filing the appeal has been explained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit dated 31.05.2014 accompanying the application, which reads thus:

" 2. I submit that I am permanent employee of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short KSRTC) working as a Driver, that on 17/10/2008 I was met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda motor bike run by the I respondent, resulting the said accident I sustained injuries my right leg and other parts of the body and even now I was under the continuous treatment and hence I have approached the tribunal for compensation, that the tribunal by its order dated 26/12/2012 was pleased to partly allowed my claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 4,62,000/- with 6% interest and award was passed on 31/01/2013, however my advocate has applied for certified copy on 29/12/2013 and the same was delivered to my advocate on 19/02/2013 and the same was informed to me by my advocate and also informed me if I want to enhancement of compensation to file an appeal before this Hon''ble court, however I told my advocate that since I was not in a position to bear the litigation expenses after getting compensation from the respondents I will prefer appeal before this Hon''ble Court and I was also in need of money for my treatment I was waiting for the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal, however in the month of September 2013 the respondent has deposited the awarded amount and after withdrawing the same I took treatment at different hospital and by virtue of the said accident I was not in a position to work as a driver in the management of KSRTC and hence I made a request to the KSRTC for light duty, but the management of KSRTC neither considered my request not issued any endorsement so far, under the circumstances I have approached this Hon''ble court by filing writ petition in W.P. No. 44977/2012 seeking change of my nature of work in the KSRTC and the this Hon''ble Court was pleased to allowed the writ petition and directed the KSRTC to consider my request as per Section 47 of the persons with disabilities Act 1995, by considering the direction issued by this Hon''ble Court, the management of KSRTC has given light duty to me in the month of March 2014, right from the date of accident I was not in a position to travel and the doctor who treated me has advised not to travel for a long distance and do light work, since I was not in a position to discharge my duty I was applied for leave, resulting which I was not paid salary by the management of KSRTC, due to financial difficulty and the reasons state supra I could not file this appeal in time, recently after taking treatment from the hospital and also receiving compensation from the respondents I have approached my advocate in the month of May 2014 and instructed him to file this appeal before this Hon''ble Court. Hence there is a delay in finding this appeal.

I submit that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional but because of bonafide reasons stated supra. In the event, if this application is not allowed I will be put to great hardship and injury and on the other hand no harm would be caused to other side if this application is allowed."

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and after perusing the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it emerges that, there is an inordinate delay of 431 days in filing the appeal. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily by the appellant by assigning cogent and valid reasons. The explanation offered is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the said delay. As there is an inordinate delay of 431 days in filing the appeal, the appellant is bound to explain each day''s delay in filing the appeal by assigning cogent and valid reasons. Much credibility cannot be given to the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the said delay. Hence, in view of non explanation of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, in a satisfactory manner, we are of the view that the said delay cannot be condoned nor the appellant has made out any good ground to condone the same. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I.A. 1/2014 is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed.

However, in the interest of justice and equity, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period. To substantiate his submission, he submitted that the appellant is a driver by profession, working in KSRTC and earning more than Rs. 12,000/- per month and after the accident the Corporation has reduced his three increments and there is a reduction in his salary and now he has assigned with light work.. He further submits that on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 60% to his right lower limb, on account of which, he is not in a position to do his work as effectively as he was doing earlier and it is permanent in nature and he has to suffer this disability through out his life. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellant and after careful perusal of the material available on file, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that the occurrence of the accident and the resultant injuries sustained by the appellant are not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that, he is the driver working in the Corporation and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month as his salary and after the accident the Corporation has reduced his three increments and his basic became Rs. 5,520/- instead of Rs. 6,600/-. The appellant further deposed that as he is having disability of 60% to the right lower limb which is functional and permanent disability and the range of movement is 50% loss in the right knee as well as in the right ankle joint and on account of the disability, he has been given lighter work without there being any reduction in the salary. The appellant has not produced any salary certificate to show what is the exact income nor he has examined the employer or its authorized officer. Therefore, the Tribunal has justified in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 10,000/- per month and the disability at 20% to the whole body and adopted multiplier of 14. Further, the Tribunal, after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on file, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, the nature and duration of the treatment taken by him, has justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 4,62,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit, after assigning valid reasons. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for awarding the said compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant is just and reasonable and therefore, it does not call for interference. Nor we find any merit in the grounds urged by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal to entertain the relief sought in this appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.