AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th March 2011, passed in MVC No. 5304/2007, by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-17), (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 appellants has also filed I.A. 1/2013, seeking condonation of delay of 665 days in filing the Appeal.
The delay of 665 days in filing the appeal has been explained at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A. 1/2013. The said paragraphs of the affidavit read thus:
We have filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Hon''ble MACT, Bangalore in MVC No. 5304/2007 vide judgment and award dated 04/03/2011, towards the death of my husband in a road traffic accident. That I am old and sick lady suffering from old age illness, and not recovered from the shock suffered due to the death of my husband. As such, I was not able to move about, and take steps to file the appeal at the earliest. The other appellants who are my children are also not able to file the appeal at the earliest as the third appellant who is my son is doing work at the village far away from Bangalore and earning livelihood for the family, and the second appellant who is my daughter being a lady is looking after me with great difficulty having no source of livelihood, and also incurring expenses towards my treatment. As such, there being no person to take steps infilling the appeal, we could not file the appeal at the earliest. The respondents have deposited the compensation amount recently during the month of September 2012, and thereafter we have got filed the vouchers, and received the amount by cheque, and at that time my counsel asked as to the filing of the appeal, for which we had replied that we have not yet filed the appeal. Thereafter, when searched in our office, we noticed that the certified copies were lost or misplaced, and in view of my illness, we thereafter got applied for the certified copies on 08/02/2013. The certified copy of the judgment and award was received by my counsel on 11/02/2013, and thereafter I had received the intimation from my counsel, and collected the certified copies on 26/02/2013, and got filed the appeal. Hence the delay.
The delay in filing the appeal is not an intentional one but due to the above stated bonafide reason. If not, we would have definitely got filed the appeal at the earliest. If the delay is not condoned, we will suffer irreparable injury and injustice as the compensation awarded is less. If the delay is condoned no hardship, injury or injustice will be caused to the respondents as they could contest the appeal on merits.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants 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 665 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily by assigning valid and cogent reasons. The explanation offered at paragraphs 2 and 3 is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the delay of 665 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. The reasons assigned do not inspire the confidence of this Court. 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 death of the deceased in the road traffic accident are not in dispute. Further, it is not disputed that the claimants are none other than the wife and children of deceased was aged about appellant. The Tribunal is justified in deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- per month, awarded reasonable compensation towards loss of dependency and also towards conventional heads. The same is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement nor the appellant has made out any good ground for interference in the well considered and well reasoned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.