IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4635/2008 {Prabhu Dayal Sharma Versus Abdul Rehman & Others} Date of Order :: 24th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Anoop Agarwal for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application under Section 5 of th Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 114 days in filing the appeal as well on merits of the appeal also. 2. So far as delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the learned counsel has explained the same in para 2 of the application as under: “2. That the applicant- appellant is a villagers & unknown about the period of limitation & his counsel before trial court has also not tell about period of limitation. He was under impression that there is no any period of limitation like claim petition. Hence due to this reason there is delay in filing the appeal which is not intention, but bonafide as such excusable.” 3. The above explanation shows that it was general in nature and no specific explanation has been given about non-filing of the appeal in time. The explanation given by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be satisfactory in nature. 4. Apart from above, I have also examined the merits of the case. The appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 4th November, 2000 and being aggrieved with the award dated 18th October, 2004 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 472/2004. The appellant sustained seven injuries. Four injuries were found to be simple in nature and three injuries were referred for x-ray advise. The medical officer gave its report on 6th November, 2000 itself that the fracture was old one. From the medical report, it appears that this fracture was not connected with the accident took place on 4th November, 2000. As per permanent disability certificate Ex.-17, the appellant suffered 6.3% permanent disability. No documents were produced on record about treatment or the amount spent on medicines etc. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 5000/- for nutritious food and expenses of the hospital, Rs. 4000/- for expected loss of income for accident and Rs. 15,000/- for physical pain and mental agony and permanent disability also. Thus, total sum of Rs. 24,000/- awarded in the present case. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the finding of the learned Tribunal, I find that the medical officer in his x-ray report specifically mentioned that the so-called fracture was old one and it clearly shows that it was not connected with the accident in dispute. The appellant admitted in his statement that he has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of medicines etc. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the leaned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 24,000/- in total, which in my view, cannot be said to be a meager amount and is just, reasonable and fair amount and no interference in it is called for. 5. In view of above discussions, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. The appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation as well as on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK