IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1336 of 2011() ----------------------- AWARD DATED 10.02.06 IN I.A.681/05 IN OP(MV) NO.229/05 OF M.A.C.T, NEYYATTINKARA APPELLANTS : 2ND COUNTER PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- SRI BHAGAVATHY MOTORS, ASC FOR BAJAJ MOTORS, THINKAL NAGAR,THALAKULAM ROAD,NEYOOR POST, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,TAMIL NADU-629802.REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A.MOORTHY.(WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED AS PROPRIETOR,SRI BHAGAVATHY MOTORS SALES AND SERVICE OF BAJAJ MOTORS). BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 -------------------------------- 1. JAYAKUMARI,AGED 30 YEARS,W/O.LATE VIJAYAN,SRIDHI SAI BHAVAN,OORUTTUKALA, NEYYATTINKARA – 695 035. 2. HARIKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, RAMAKRISHNA BHAVAN, MEKKODE, MONDAY MARKET, PIN – 629 802. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ AUTOMOBILES, AKRUDI, BOMBAY, PUNE – 400 001. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.2041 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.1336 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. C.M.Appl.No.2041 of 2011 is to condone the delay of 1900 days in filing the appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an award passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Under the impugned award, an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been directed to be paid. The appellant has deposited Rs.25,000/- already, it is submitted. 3. There is gross and inordinate delay of 1900 days in filing the appeal. We are not persuaded to agree that the delay deserves to be condoned. Sufficient reasons have not been shown to justify the prayer for condonation of delay. 4. However, in our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in failure or miscarriage of justice, we requested the counsel to explain the nature of the challenge that the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award. The learned counsel for the C.M.Appl.No.2041 of 2011 in M.A.C.A No.1336 of 2011 2 appellant contends that the appellant is only a representative of the dealer and not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. This is the short contention raised. The real owner according to the appellant has not been brought on the array of parties by the claimant. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary for us to entertain that contention now. Our refusal to condone the long and inordinate delay of 1900 days is unlikely to result in any failure or miscarriage of justice. 5. This petition for condonation of delay is, in these circumstances, dismissed. 6. By way of abundant caution, we make it clear that if the appellant deposits the entire amount due under the impugned award before the Tribunal (or the same is recovered from the appellant), the Tribunal must, while finally disposing of the O.P, consider the contention of the appellant that he is not liable to pay any amount to the claimant and if that contention is upheld, appropriate further directions regarding recovery of the compensation amount paid under the impugned award from the person really liable must be issued by the Tribunal. C.M.Appl.No.2041 of 2011 in M.A.C.A No.1336 of 2011 3 7. With the above observations, this application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal shall hence stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/