IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1399 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1317/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT : 1ST RESPONDENT -------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NESAMONY TRANSPORT CORPORATION NOW TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADURAI DIVISION III, NAGERCOIL. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS : PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT --------------- 1. JACOB KURIYAN, PUTHIYA VEEDU, KIZHEKKEKKARA, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM – 690 001. 2. P.T.KUNJAMMA, OF .... DO .... DO 3. ANNAMMA, DO ..... DO ....... 4. T.ATHIKESAVAPERUMAL, S/O.THANGA NADAR, AZHAGAN VILAI, GANAPATHIPURAM, KANYAKUMARI DIST. - 600 001. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.2136 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.1399 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. C.M.Appl.No.2136 of 2011 is to condone the delay of 2254 days in filing the appeal. “Inadvertent omission” is the only reason advanced to justify the prayer for condonation of such a long delay. We are convinced that there is no sufficient reason to justify the prayer for condonation of delay. The petition only deserves to be dismissed and the appeal deserves to be rejected as barred by limitation. 2. However, in our anxiety to ensure that the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay does not result in failure/miscarriage of justice, we wanted the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the grounds on which the appellant wants to challenge the impugned award. We are informed that the appellant wants primarily to challenge the award against the finding of the question of negligence. The claimant relied on C.M.Appl.No.2136 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.1399 of 2011 2 Ext.A1 F.I.R, Ext.A2 charge sheet and Ext.A3 scene mahazar. Not satisfied by the production and marking of these documents, the claimants also examined PW2, an eye witness to the occurrence. The appellant/owner of the vehicle did not think it necessary to adduce any evidence to dispute the case of the claimants on the question of negligence. No oral evidence whatsoever was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal accepted and acted upon Ext.A2 charge sheet which is supported by the oral evidence of PW2. 3. This Court had already adverted to the relevance of the final report filed by the police after due investigation against an indictee in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the decision in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. V. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648]. In the instant case in addition to the final report/charge sheet filed by the police, we do also have the oral evidence of PW2. In any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that there is any merit in the challenge. The rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not lead to any failure/miscarriage of justice, we are satisfied. C.M.Appl.No.2136 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.1399 of 2011 3 4. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal shall consequently stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/