IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 2280 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.1070/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT. --------------------------------------- UNION OF INDIA OWING SOUTHERN RAILWAY, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT AND RESPONDENTS TO 3. ---------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU,S/O.PARAMESWARAN, CHIRANDOTH NIKARTH, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA-688 531. 2. SHANMUGHAN.K.N, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOTHURUTHIL HOUSE, PATTANAKKTA P.O., CHERTHALA-688 531. 3. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KAYAMKULAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. JOHNSON, S/O.ABRAHAM, CHAMAKKALAYIL VEEDU, KONNATHADY VILLAGE OFFICE, IDUKKI-685 571. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.2956 of 2010 & M.A.C.A.No.2280 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 512 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on January 22, 2009. But according to the deponent, who is stated to be the Divisional Railway Manager ( Works), Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram, permission had to be obtained to file the appeal from the head quarters situated at Chennai, through various departments like Law Branch, Accounts branch and finally Principal Head of the Department/General Manager. Thereafter, proposal had to be submitted before the “divisional accounts” for arranging payment. According to the petitioner, the delay has occurred in the above circumstances. Having carefully perused the averments in the affidavit, we are not at all satisfied with the so called explanation offered for condonation of the inordinate delay. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE sv P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv