MAC APP No.134/2008 Page 1 of 3 13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC. APP. No.134/2008 Reserved on : 20th January, 2009 Date of decision: 6th February, 2009 % RAKESH KUMAR & ANR. ..... Appellants Through : Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv. versus PRATAP SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Anand Vardhan Sharma, Adv. for R-2. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? J.R. Midha, J. CM No.3123/2008 1. There is a delay of 455 days in filing of this appeal. The impugned award was passed on 19th August, 2006 and the present appeal has been filed on 15th February, 2008. 2. The reasons for condonation given in the application are that the counsel prepared the appeal in November, 2006 but the same was kept pending as the certified copy was not available. It is further stated that during winter vacations, i.e. after more than a year the clerk of the counsel detected that MAC APP No.134/2008 Page 2 of 3 the appeal had not been filed and he immediately applied for certified copy on the reopening on 4th January, 2008 and, thereafter, the appeal was filed. 3. The application does not sufficiently explain the delay of 455 days. Since the appeal was prepared in November, 2006, there is no explanation for the period November, 2006 to January, 2008. The conduct of the appellant’s counsel and his clerk shows sheer negligence. The conduct of the appellant has also not been explained. 4. I am of the view that no case for condonation of delay is made out in the present case. 5. While dealing with the application of condonation of delay, the case on merits also need to be examined and a good case on merits should not be thrown out merely on the ground of gross delay because by condoning the delay, the appellant only gets the opportunity of being heard on merits and nothing more. I have, therefore, examined the merits of this case. 6. Even on merits, the appellant has not been able to make out a good case. The appeal relates to the death of a girl aged 14 years in the motor accident. The appellant filed the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal has computed the compensation according to the Second Schedule by taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and by MAC APP No.134/2008 Page 3 of 3 applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation has been worked out at Rs.1,50,000/- to which the funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/- have been added. The total compensation has been computed at Rs.1,52,000/- on which interest @6% has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appellant has challenged the award on the ground that the income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs.22,000/- per annum instead of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- should have been awarded on account of loss of love and affection, loss of estate. 7. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation as per Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. I do not find any infirmity in the same. There is no merit in the appeal. 8. I, therefore, dismiss the application for condonation of delay. MAC.APP. 134/2008 1. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. 2. No costs. J.R. MIDHA, J February , 2009 aj