THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.410 of 1998 JUDGMENT: The appellant presented Original Petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak, at Sanga Reddy, for compensation. He pleaded that in an accident that has taken place on 20-01-1991, on the road from Hyderabad to Siddipet, an accident took place at Mothpally, and he suffered disability in the form of fracture. The appellant was said to be traveling in an auto rickshaw, bearing No.AHT-1860, and that a lorry bearing No.APT- 5585 is said to have dashed against the auto. At the relevant point of time, the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’) stipulated time for presentation of the claim. Since there was a delay of 65 days, by the time the appellant presented the claim, he filed I.A.No.1002 of 1991, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That was dismissed on 17-03-1993, for default. Explaining that the O.P. could not be pursued due to the prolonged treatment, the appellant filed I.A.No.1171 of 1996, under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C., to set aside the same. Through its order dated 14-08-1997, the Tribunal dismissed the I.A. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation for the respondent. Three years time was stipulated under the Act, for presentation of the claims, before the Act was amended, deleting the provision as to limitation. It is no doubt true that the delay involved is not much, and the explanation offered by the appellant is not so unreasonable, as to be totally ignored. All the same, the appellant ought to have taken proper steps to present the claim. It is not as if his presence was necessary through out. Instructions or authorization given to any one, would have served the purpose. More than the acceptability of the reasons pleaded by the appellant, the availability of the material, connected with the accident, become relevant. The records of the Insurance Company, or other connected record cannot be expected to be preserved for long time. Further, having filed an application to condone the delay, the appellant did not evince any interest, to pursue it, and an order for default was passed. At any rate, nothing would be available for verification of its length of time, even if the request of the appellant is acceded to. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12-08-2009. KO