IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 1626 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.2364/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER --------------------- A.A.VARGHESE, S/O.ANTONY, ELAVATHUNKAL HOUSE, KUNNU BHAGAM, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. AJITH C.NAIR, MULAKUNNATHU HOUSE, ULLANAD P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1626 of 2009 & C.M.Appln.No.1856 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basheer,J. This appeal has been filed with a petition to condone the delay of 315 days in filing the appeal. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company, has filed a counter affidavit, contending that the reasons stated by the appellant are not good or sufficient enough to condone the delay. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurance Company. 3. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on 24th March, 2008. In the affidavit filed in the support of the application for condonation of delay, it is stated by the appellant that he was “out of station”, when the communication from his counsel was delivered at his residence. He further states that he came to know about the matter only during the M.A.C.A.No.1626 of 2009 2 second week of April, when he contacted the counsel. It is thus that the appellant has tried to explain the inordinate delay. We are not at all satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant. 4. Nevertheless we have perused the impugned Award and heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the merit of the case also. It is revealed from the records that the appellant suffered the following injury:- “Fracture dislocation over right ankle (Fracture to medial malleolus and fracture to fibula)” The appellant had produced Exts.A1 to A8 in support of his case. He did not bother to get himself examined in the case, nor he examined the Doctor who treated him. No disability certificate was also produced. But according to the learned counsel, the appellant is still suffering from adverse effects of the injury. In M.A.C.A.No.1626 of 2009 3 the absence of any evidence in support of this contention, we are not persuaded to accept the same. 5. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.58,680/- under various heads. Under the head of 'pain and sufferings', a sum of Rs.12,000/- has been awarded and towards 'Loss of amenities', the appellant has been awarded an amount of Rs.8000/-. The entire claim to the tune of Rs.26,930/- claimed by the appellant was also awarded apart from a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards 'Loss of earnings'. We do not propose to refer to the other heads under which the claim made by the appellant has been allowed. Having perused the impugned Award, we are satisfied that the compensation awarded for the sole injury suffered by the appellant is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, just and reasonable. Since the appellant has not been able to explain the inordinate delay properly and also for the reason that the M.A.C.A.No.1626 of 2009 4 compensation awarded is just and reasonable, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. The delay petition and the appeal are therefore dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. nj.