IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 2766 of 2009() ----------------------------------- ( O.P(MV).357/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA) .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SREE NILAYAM, THRIKKARIYOOR KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SRI.C.I.BABY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. LAL, S/O.ELDHO, KULAPPURAM HOUSE, ANGADI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. DEVASSIYA VARKY, PULICKAL HOUSE, PIDAVOPOPR, POTHANICADU. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PB NO.50, ELENGICAL PLAZA, CHURCH VIEW JUNCTION, KOTHAMANGALAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- CM Appln. No.3267 of 2009 & M.A.C.A. No.2766 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 888 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal way back on 17th February, 2006 dismissing the claim petition. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had thereafter filed an application to restore the claim petition. The said petition was also dismissed on merit on February 27, 2007 after finding that there was no sufficient or plausible reason to restore the claim petition. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is seen averred by the petitioner that he was out of Kerala “for a very long time” in connection with his employment. It is further stated by him that after the dismissal of the restoration petition he CM Appln. No.3267 of 2009 & M.A.C.A. No.2766 of 2009 2 obtained a copy of the award. According to him he had been working in a private firm and was finding it difficult to make both ends meet. He could not raise sufficient money to file the appeal because of that reason. According to the petitioner the inordinate delay occurred due to the above reasons. Having perused averments in the affidavit, we are not at all satisfied with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner to condone the inordinate delay. Therefore the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc