IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 912 of 2011(C) ---------------------- O.P.(MV) NO.3294/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ HASSAINAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.LATE SAIDU MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT PULIKKAL HOUSE, PANJAL P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SHAMEER, S/O.ABDULLA, PUTHANPEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MOHANAN, AGED 33 YEARS, PARUTHODIYIL VEEDU, VETTIKKATTIRI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE OTTAPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.1439 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.912 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. C.M.Appl.No.1439 of 2011 is to condone the delay of 1095 days in preferring M.A.C.A No.912 of 2011. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We are not satisfied that the long and inordinate delay of 1095 days deserves to be condoned. However, in our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award. Against a total claim of Rs.2,91,500/-, only an amount of Rs.1,78,720/- has been awarded by the Tribunal and the details are available in para.11 of the impugned award. We do not think it necessary to extract the details of the amounts awarded. Suffice it to say that the C.M.Appl.No.1439 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.912 of 2011-C 2 challenge is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant against the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity. The amounts awarded under both these heads are challenged on one specific ground. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning only Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income of the claimant/appellant, a rubber tapper. What according to the appellant is his wages? According to the appellant, he gets a daily wages of Rs.112/- as a rubber tapper. Even if it were assumed that he gets work for a period of 25 days in a month, his total income could not have been exceeded Rs.2,800/-. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the conclusion that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- deserves appellate interference invoking our jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the delay does not deserve to be condoned. We are further satisfied that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in any miscarriage of justice. C.M.Appl.No.1439 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.912 of 2011-C 3 3. In these circumstances, the petition for condonation of delay and the appeal are dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/