The Miscellaneous Petition No.15221 of 2005 has been filed for condoning the delay of 176 days in preferring the appeal. Notice is yet to be served in spite of lapse of long period.
2. On going through the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, the memorandum of grounds of appeal and the reasons given in the award of the Tribunal, this court is not inclined to condone the delay for the following reasons:-
(i) Even though the award was passed on 14.10.2004, it is stated that the copy application for certified copy of judgment and decree has been filed on 26.5.2005. It is stated that the clerk of the advocate died.
(ii) There is a delay of 7 days in receiving the certified copy of judgment and decree by the counsel who appeared for the appellant corporation before the court below.
(iii) There is a delay of about 14 days in sending the certified copy of judgment and decree to the appellant corporation by the counsel who appeared for the appellant corporation before the court below.
(iv) There is a delay of 14 days in getting approval from the appeal committee.
(v) It is a case of injury in the accident which happened on 28.8.1997.
(vi) The injured claimant Appusamy, aged 41 years, was doing milk business at the time of accident.
(vii) The award was passed on 14.10.2004 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with 9% interest.
(viii) The appeal is filed primarily challenging the quantum of compensation.
(ix) The appeal was filed on 25.7.2005 along with the petition for condonation of delay.
(x) In the petition for condonation of delay, notice was ordered on 13.9.2005. Till date service was not effected and many years have passed.
In the affidavit, it is stated that the delay in filing the copy application is due to death of the advocate clerk. No proof is filed to that effect. There is undue delay on the part of the counsel for the corporation who appeared before the court below in receiving the certified copy of judgment and decree from the court below and sending the same to the appellant corporation. There is also delay in getting approval from the appeal committee. All these caused the delay in prosecuting the appeal and which delay according to this court, has not been properly explained. Further, considering all the aspects of the case as above, this court finds no good reason to order fresh notice and to condone the delay after service, which will cause further prejudice to the injured claimant who is suffering prejudice as the fruits of award has not been paid to him after lapse of five years.
3. Moreover, on going through the award, I find no major infirmity on merit in the order of the Tribunal that would require interference by this Court so as to reduce the quantum of compensation. The counsel for the appellant is not able to establish prima facie any grave infirmity in the order under challenge which requires consideration by this Court in appeal.
4. Considering the date of accident, date of award, date of preferring of the appeal, this court is not inclined to grant further time for service of notice to condone the delay, at this point of time. This will cause great prejudice to the claimant.
5. In such view of the matter, the petition filed to condone the delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected in the SR stage.
ts To The Principal District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Namakkal