IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 1356 of 2000 (D) ----------------------------------- O.P.(M.V).NO.139/1992 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KALPETTA. .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, S. BATHERY, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS OFFICE, IVTH FLOOR, VETTIKATTIL BUILDINGS, KOCHI - 682 016. BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN. RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANTS 1 TO 14/ RESPONDENT NO. 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. A. PATHUMMA, W/O. KUNHALAN, AGED 70 YEARS, (MOTHER), AAKAAT HOUSE, TUVOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. TUVOOR. 2. K. MARIA (WIFE), W/O. HAMZA, KOMPATTIYIL VEEDU, AGED 38 YEARS, MAMPUZHA.P.O., KARVARAKUNDU, TUVOOR. 3. K. MYMOONA, D/O. HAMZA, KOMPATTIYIL VEEDU, AGED 24 YEARS, MAMPUZHA. P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU. 4. K. SULEKHA, D/O. HAMZA, AGED 20 YEARS, KOMPATTIYIL HOUSE, MAMPUZHA.P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU. 5. N. NAZER, S/O. HAMZA, AGED 18 YEARS, KOMPATTIYIL HOUSE, MAMPUZHA.P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU. M.F.A. NO. 1356/2000-D: 6. K. PATHUMMA, D/O. HAMZA, AGED 11 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND PETITIONER NO.3. MYMOONA. 7. T. PATHU, (WIFE), AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. HAMZA, THAYYIL VEEDU, P.O. MOOLANKAVU, SULTHANBATHERY. 8. K. KABIR, S/O. HAMZA, AGED 18 YEARS, KALANBULAN VEEDU, P.O. MOOLANKAVU, SULTANBATHERY. 9. K. SOUJITH, D/O. HAMZA, AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND PETITIONER NO.7, T. PATHU, W/O. HAMZA, THAYYIL HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU, SULTANBATHERY. 10. K. NAJUMUNNISA, D/O. HAMZA, AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY T. PATHU, W/O. HAMZA. 11. SHEHAR BANU, D/O. HAMZA, AGED 19 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN AND FRIEND PETITIONER NO. 7 T. PATHU. 12. ABOO THAHIR, S/O. HAMZA, AGED 3 YEARS (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, T. PATHU. 13. P. PATHUMMA, W/O. HAMZA, AGED 35 YEARS, POOZHITHODIYIL VEEDU, P.O. MOOLANKAVU, SULTHANBATHERY. 14. K. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. HAMZA, AGED 9 YEARS, (MINOR), REP. BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND PETITIONER NO. 13, P. PATHUMMA. 15. JOSEPH, S/O. POULOSE, (DIRVER OF THE LORRY KRD-3677), AGE NOT KNOWN, VADAKKUMPADAL VEEDU, PALAKKARA KUNNU, MOOLANKAVU POST, KUPPADI AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 16. GEORGE K. GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, KYNILATHIL VEEDU, TIRUNELLI, S. BATHERY. (R.C. OWNER OF THE LORRY KRD-3677). ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R3 TO R14, ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER FOR R15 & R16, ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE FOR R15 & R16. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.1356 OF 2000 and C.M.P.No.8137 of 2000 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . C.M.P.No.8137 of 2000 is filed to condone the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. We quote the affidavit filed along with the delay condonation petition as follows: “There is a delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. The above delay occurred due to some administrative factors. There is no willful laches or negligence on the part of the petitioner in not filing the appeal in time. Unless the said delay is not condoned, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and sufferings.” The affidavit was not filed by any responsible officer of the insurance company, but, by the advocate. The only reason stated is that there are some administrative factors. What are the administrative factors etc. are not mentioned. No satisfactory reasons are stated for condoning the delay. The appeal was filed in the year 2000. Notice was also issued in the delay condonation petition on 21.12.2000, but, the process was MFA.1356/2000 & C.M.P.8137/2000 2 served only on 4.9.2001after giving several opportunities. Meanwhile, the second respondent, wife of the motor accident victim, also died. No steps are taken thereafter also. Since no satisfactory grounds are stated to condone the delay, the delay condonation petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks