IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1847 of 2010(B) ----------------------- OPMV.1787/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------- HARIKRISHNAN,PAREPADATH HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM KARA,KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. PRATHEEP,PAREPADATH HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM,KOTTAYAM, 686 608. 2. GOPISANKARAN,GOKULAM HOUSE, VADAKKENADA BHAGOM,NADUVILE VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DT, 686 001. 3. KISHOREKUMAR,THEKKEVEEDU,MUTHIYAVILA, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM 695 572. 4. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM, 686 141. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ C.M.APPLN.2345/2010 & M.A.C.A.1847 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: OCTOBER 8, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The prayer in this application filed under sec.5 of the Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 860 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on November 16, 2007. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the alleged accident had occurred because of the negligence of the petitioner/appellant himself and that no other vehicle apart from the bike in which the appellant was riding was involved in the accident. 3. According to the petitioner, on receipt of the certified copy of the award, he decided not to file an appeal. He instructed his father also not to prefer an appeal. At that time he was a student. But later he changed his opinion, especially since the “infirmities caused by the injury have ruined” his health. “Paucity of funds for a better treatment has now forced” him to challenge the award. He further averred that he is not in a position to walk for a long distance and C.M.APPLN.2345/2010 & M.A.C.A.1847 of 2010 2 “certain disabilities due to the accident” have cropped up. It is therefore that he has now decided to file the appeal. 4. Having perused the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, we are not satisfied with the so-called explanation offered by the petitioner. Therefore the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-