IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 MFA.No. 125 of 2011() --------------------- WCC.15/2009 of W.C.C.,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND OPPOSIT PARTY IN WCC -------------------------------------- M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ZENITH HOUSE, KESAVARO KHAIDE MARG, MAHALAKSHMY, MUMBAI-400034, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRAMATHY, W/O RAJAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPARAMBU P.O., CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM-673634. 2. RAJISHA, D/O CHANDRAMATHI, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPARAMBU P.O., CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM-673634. 3. SHAJI ANTONY, NEELIKUNNEL HOUSE, KODENCHERRY P.O., KOZHIKODE-673634. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: smvd R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- CMA No.1312/2011 & MFA(WCC) No.125 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th June, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT Basant, J. CMA No.1312/2011 is to condone the delay of 290 days in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/Insurance Company submits that the delay occurred on account of the reasons beyond the control of the appellant. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the petition. We are not satisfied that there is sufficient ground to condone the delay of 290 days. We are further satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondents to consider and dispose of this application for condonation of delay. 2. In our anxiety to avoid any failure of justice, we wanted the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner to explain the substantial question of law which he wants to raise in this appeal. The learned counsel submits that the only substantial question of law which the appellant wants to raise is about the validity of the direction that interest should be paid from the date of the accident. The liability to pay interest can arise only after elapse of a period of one month from the date of the award. MFA No.125/2011 2 That is the short question of law that the appellant wants to raise before this Court. 3. The question is already covered by two decisions of the Kerala High Court, viz. National Insurance Co.Ltd. v Rekha (2007(4) KLT 386) and Harison's Malayalam Ltd. v Ashraf (2009(1) KLT 825). 4. It is true that in the light of certain subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, appeals raising identical questions have been admitted to file. But in the instant case, we note that the accident had taken place on 6.9.2008. The award was passed on 30.4.2010. The date on which the claim was filed is not made clear to us, but it is evident that it was filed in early 2009. 5. Considering the nature and consequence of the question that is raised, we are satisfied that no failure of justice would result if we do not condone the delay of 290 days in filing the appeal. This petition for condonation of delay is hence dismissed. Consequently, the appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/