IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 3244 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1246/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ ANILKUMAR, CHEMPAKASSERIL KIZHAKKATHIL, MYNAGAPPALLY SOUTH, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. V.ABDUL LATHEEF, DILSHAD MANZIL, KOTTARAKKARA KERALAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. BRAHMAN, GANAPATHIVILASAM, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.3244 OF 2009 & C.M.Appln.No.3854 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the prayer is to condone the delay of 584 days in filing the appeal. 2. It is averred by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application that he was told by the clerk attached to the office of his counsel that he would be informed as soon as the copy of the award was received. 3. After the receipt of the copy, he came to know that his claim petition was dismissed. His Advocate directed his clerk to entrust the case to a lawyer in the High Court for filing the appeal. But according to the petitioner as the case bundle was misplaced by the Clerk, he could not take steps in this regard. The case bundle was traced out only on October 14, 2009. Thus there occurred the delay of 584 days. 4. It may be noticed that the award was passed on October 31, MACA.No.3244/2009 2 2007. The appeal is filed with the free copy of the award furnished by the Tribunal which is seen to have been delivered to the appellant on February 15, 2008. We have carefully perused the affidavit. We are not at all satisfied with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner. More importantly, the Clerk because of whose lapse the delay has occurred, has not even bothered to file an affidavit. The averments in the affidavit are totally vague, unconvincing and unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Appeal is also dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.3244/2009 2 MACA.No.3244/2009 2