IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 988 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1611/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): /IST RESPONDENT. --------------------- MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.J.JAYALALITHA TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NOW KNOWN AS STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION TAMIL NADU LTD. CHENNAI-2. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS. ------------------------- 1. SARAMMA MATHEW, W/O.LATE V.J.MATHEW, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, CHANGALAM KARA, THIRUVARPU VILLAGE 2. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.VARGHESE KOSHY, KOVILA BUNGLOW, ANCHAL. 3. JOSEPH MATHEW, S/O.LATE V.J.MATHEW, VAZHIYIL HOUSE, CHANGALAM KARA. 4. ANNAMMA EAPPEN W/O.CHACKO EAPPEN, KIZHAKKANETH HOUSE, ALAKAPPANAGAR, PHUTHUKKADU BHAGOM, THRISSUR. 5. ASHA MANY NINAN,. W/O.RAMESH NINAN, NELLICKAL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM KARA. 6. MUTHAYA, S/O.PINNIYAPPA THEVER, DOOR NO.II, A.R.ROAD, MADHURAI - 16. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY FOR R1,2,4 & 5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.1467 of 2004 and M.A.C.A.No.988 of 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT This petition is to condone the delay of 193 days in filing the appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. A total amount of Rs.98,000/- has been awarded as compensation for the loss suffered by the claimants in respect of the death of their husband/father, a person aged 62 years. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grievance of the appellant now is only that the addition made was incorrect and that only a total amount of Rs.97,000/- will be payable on a proper addition of the amounts awarded under various heads. We do note that there is a mistake committed in arithematical addition. But we are not persuaded to agree that in substance, an amount of Rs.98,000/- can be said to be in any way not fair, just or reasonable. We have looked into the nature of the explanation for the delay. We are not satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this petition for condonation of delay does not merit favourable consideration. The application for condonation of delay is hence dismissed. M.A.C.A.No.988 of 2004 2 Consequently, the appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.