IN THE HIGH COURT OF IKARNATAIKA CIRCUIT BENCH T DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY MISCCVL. N(l06159 AND 105542/2011 ND M.F.A. NO. 21452/2011 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAC1ER. ORIE\ f \I INST R \\ b I FED EEL 1 f5 REP I FiROL T H I RLcOu\ \L (F FILE SE MANGALA COM PLEN II B FLOOR, STATION RO?D. HLBLI. RF P B\ 155 IsI ] \I \N \( 1 Lk h Nr (BY RRLNAGANGOUDA P. LUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR B. C. SEETHARAMA R.A() AS‘SOC.IATES) AND SRI. MAHARAJA S/a U PPALAPPA GE 31 YEARS R/O ROD\L \ILLGE TQ:SANDUR, BELLARY, (15\.ViEp C)F THE LORRY 5() 35/A74(1( AND AN OTHER MISC. CVL. NO. I 001 59.2011 iS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 F ‘11 0 3 ))II í N ‘‘2 ‘TLED \U1 F PLER RULE S OFTF{E CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR STAN cka be r jj j \jj, FII.kI) 1: ShU.3ffi I) 01: WU At’ I’. I fl23 %GAINS’I Iii ,ii IX\Il’N’I AXI) ORDER IYfl):30—09—200’) PASSED IN %(‘A:NF.N0.263 2006 oN liii: FIl.F ON liii. I ABOl R o[Hc’l:R AND VORKMENS (‘ON1PESS I’lO\. 1411 LARY St’l1I)lVlSI(fl.iI. BEt.! .ARY. AWARDIS(j THE (‘OXIPI.NSA’I’lt)N OF Rs.l.I3.r - VI I’ll lN’l’ERESI A I i’lIIi RATE OF I2’o P.A.. FROM [HE DAlI’. OF PE littON TiLL li_s IWR)SIT. THESE MISC. CVLs. AND MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The explanation for the inordinate delay of 466 days in filing the appeal by the Insurance Company calling in question the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is set out in paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the application which reads thus: “2. The above appeal is preferred by our Company being aggrieved by the perverse and illegal order of the Commissioner in making our company liable to pay compensation. The certified copy of which was obtained on 12.11.2009 by our dealing Advocate at Bellary and sent the same to our office at Bellarv. After receipt of the file from our advocate while processing the file to send the same to our fr& a 3 Regional office due to oversight the above file was kept aside in the papers in the rack meant for our judgments and awards for satisfaction. On enquiry with our officer with regard to the above file it was noticed that the above file was misplaced in the office and was not traced out for a long time and we could not take any steps in filing the appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner. It is in the month of December 2010 when the detailed scrutiny of the files was made in our Divisional Office it was heard that the file was mixed with some other files due to oversight and was accordingly misplaced. Immediately after tracing out the file our Divisional Office forwarded the same to our Regional office at Hubli in the 1 st week of January 2011 and immediately thereafter, I sent the above file to our panel advocate seeking opinion on the award made by the Commissioner. Our counsel returned the file with his opinion dated 31.1.201 1 recommending to file the appeal challenging the common order passed by the Commissioner. After receiving the opinion from our counsel it is only on 4.2.20 1 1 I sent the file to our Advocate at Dharwad to prefer bk 4 4 an appeal. The papers having been received by our present counsel and the appeal papers being prepared and the same is filed before this Hontie Court on 10.3.2011. In this process there is delay in filing the appeal. This delay was caused due to the bonafide reasons stated above which is neither intentional nor deliberate.” In the absence of material particulars and dates, explanation offered is wholly unsatisfactory and is not in the direction of establishing sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. Negligence, inaction and lack of bonaiides is attributable to the applicant. Application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected. As a consequence the appeal is dismissed. Application for stay too dismissed as unnecessary. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the concerned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, forthwith. Sd/4 JUDGE In.