IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 201 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR,JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY MISCCVL. N0J06163 AND 105532/2011 BETWEEN: IN M.F.A, NO. 21455/2011 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. UFD,, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL UM \N V A CUMPLF \ STATION RUAD. HLBL REP.13Y ITS ASSISTANT MANA( ER (BY SRI NAGANGOLDA, ADVOCATE ASSOCIATES) AND lIED FLU )R, — /PETITiOEER FOR BC. SEETFJRAMA RAD SR.I.MARENNA ALIAS MARESH S’O OH AAPPA \GF 24 F\k OCC:HAMAL1 R0. DELI NA( MR. BELLARM AND A El )TH ER RESH)E.DENTS MISC, CVL, NO, 106163/2011 iS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OP THE LIMITATION ACT FOR CONi 1 ONAT1ON P DELA MISC ( NO 1 MH H 201 fILED PR ORDL \LI RI I 5 CF CFC LuR S.TA i•23 ID H’1/I( j/MILI. V THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(l) OF WC ACT. 1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:30-09-2009 PASSED IN WCA:NF.NO.266/2006 ON THE FILE ON THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMENS COMPENSATION, BELLARY SUB-DIVISION-Il, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.85,203/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT. THESE MISC. CVLs AND MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The explanation for the inordinate delay of 466 days in filing the appeal by the Insurance Company calling in question the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is set out in paragraph 2 of the affidavit accompanying the application which reads thus: “2. The above appeal is preferred by our Company being aggrieved by the perverse and illegal order of the Commissioner in making our company liable to pay compensation. The certified copy of which was obtained on 12.11.2009 by our dealing Advocate at Bellarv and sent the same to our office at Bellarv. After receipt of the file from our advocate while processing the file to send the same to our Regionalg 3 office due to oversight the above file was kept aside in the papers in the rack meant for our judgments and awards for satisfaction. On enquiry with our officer with regard to the above file it was noticed that the above file was misplaced in the office and was not traced out for a long time and we could not take any steps in filing the appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner. It is in the month of December 2010 when the detailed scrutiny of the files was made in our Divisional Office it was heard thai the file was mixed with some other files due to oversight and was accordingly misplaced. Immediately after tracing out the file our Divisional Office forwarded the same to our Regional office at Hubli in the 1s week of January 2011 and immediately thereafter, I sent the above file to our panel advocate seeking opinion on the award made by the Commissioner. Our counsel returned the file with his opinion dated 31.1.2011 recommending to file the appeal challenging the common order passed by the Commissioner. After receiving the opinion from our counsel it is only on 4.2.2011 I sent the file to our Advocate at Dharwad to prefer an appeal. The papers having been received by our present counsel and the appeal papers being prepared and the same is filed before this Hon’ble Court on 10.3.2011. In this process thcre is delay in filing the appeal. This delay was caused due to the IA 4 4. bonafide reasons stated above which is neither intentional nor deliberate.” In the absence of material particulars and dates. explanation offered is wholly unsatisfactory and is not in the direction of establishing sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. Negligence, inaction and lack of bonafides is attributable to the applicant. Application for condonation of delay is accordingly rejected. As a consequence the appeal is dismissed. Application for stay too dismissed as unnecessary. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the concerned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, forthwith. JUDGE In.