AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 16/01/2010 passed in MVC No. 603/2008, by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-4, Davangere, (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'' for short), on the ground that, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle without fixing the liability on the Insurer and therefore, it is liable to be modified. Along with the appeal, learned counsel appearing for appellant has also filed I.A. 1/2012, seeking condonation of delay of 934 days in filing the appeal.
The delay of 934 days in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A. 1/2012 stating that, her husband was seriously ill and suffering with heart ailment and back pain, she was attending him by taking him to Bangalore and Chennai and due to which, she lost track of the case and she could not take steps to contest the matter before the Tribunal. It is further stated that, when the claimant has taken coercive steps for recovery of the amount, she came to know about the order and when she enquired, she was informed that the records were sent to this Court. It is further stated that, she applied for certified copy on 2.11.2012 and obtained the same on 3.11.2012 and thereafter, she filed this appeal. In these process there is a delay in filing the appeal. The said delay is not intentional and she has got good case on merits. If the delay is not condoned, she will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss and on the contrary, no loss or prejudice would be caused to respondents if the delay is condoned. Therefore, she prayed to allow the application.
I have perused the statements made in the affidavit, accompanying the application.
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 934 days in filing the appeal has not been explained satisfactorily 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 934 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. Interference by this Court after the lapse of 934 days is not justifiable. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, it is not a fit case to accept the statements made in para-3 of the affidavit which is in omnibus manner and to condone the delay. Therefore, much credibility cannot be given to the statements made in the affidavit accompanying the application. Hence, in view of non explanation of the 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. Taking all these factors into consideration, I.A. 1/2012 is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed.
However, in the interest of justice and equity, I have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimant, taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained, nature and duration of treatment taken by him, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 2,000/- towards nutritious food, Rs. 3,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, Rs. 28,800/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs. 3,926/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- towards attendant charges and in all, Rs. 42,726/- which was rounded off to Rs. 43,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, fastening the liability on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, on the ground that, driver has violated the terms and conditions of route permit and in turn, the policy conditions and dismissed the petition against the Insurer. The specific ground urged by the appellant is that, the liability fastened on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is not sustainable and is liable to be modified on the ground that, due to traffic jam, he has diverted his vehicle and taken the same in Nuggihalli of Channagiri taluk in order to go to Channagiri from Holalkere and it is not an intentional one and therefore, the Tribunal ought not fixed the liability on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, it is liable to be modified. The said ground taken by the appellant cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected, for the reason that, the Tribunal, after due evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a compensation of Rs. 43,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit, fastening the liability on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle after recording a finding of fact in para-10 of its judgment, which is just and proper and it does not call for interference. Therefore, interference by this Court in the well considered judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is not called for. Nor the appellant has made out any good grounds to entertain the relief sought in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.
The amount deposited by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Tribunal, immediately. Ordered accordingly.