The Miscellaneous Petition No.10068 of 2005 has been filed for condoning the delay of 78 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) There is a delay of about 4 days in filing the copy application for certified copy of judgment and decree.
(ii) There is a delay of about 21 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.
(iii) There is delay of about 20 days in getting legal opinion.
(iv) There is a delay of 55 days in getting approval from the appeal committee.
(v) There is a delay of about two months in handing over the papers to the counsel for filing appeal. It is stated that the case papers were misplaced by the staff along with other records.
(vi) It is a case of injury in the accident which happened on 24.2.2003.
(vii) The injured claimant S.Venkataramani, aged 63 years, was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working as Accountant, in Sriram Chits, Chennai-2.
(viii) The award was passed on 8.4.2004 for a sum of Rs.2,53,680/- with 9% interest.
(ix) The appeal is filed primarily challenging the quantum of compensation.
(x) The appeal was filed on 23.2.2005 along with the petition for condonation of delay.
(ix) In the petition for condonation of delay, notice was ordered on 29.6.2005. Till date service was not effected and many years have passed.
Even though it is stated that the papers were misplaced by the staff, who was dealing with this matter, the affidavit of the concerned staff has not been filed. There is undue delay on the part of the counsel for the corporation who appeared before the court below in sending the certified copy of the judgment and decree to the appellant corporation. There is also delay in getting legal opinion and getting approval from the appeal committee, which 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 Subordinate Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Thiruvallur