IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 317 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.373/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA DT.30.10.09 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ----------------------- NIZAMUDEEN, AGED 35, S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, DARUTHOUSIK, THALIKKALLIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PAZHUAMOODU, POOVACHAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA-75. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. DEEPA P.S., "DEEPTHI", CONVENT ROAD, PRAVACHAMBALAM, NEMOM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA-695120. 2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SWADESHABHIMANI COMPLEX, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND JUNCTION, NEYYATTINKARA.-695121 3. VISWAPALA PANICKER, VISWAPALA MANDIRAM, KOOTHALI P.O., VELLARADA, NEYYATTINKARA.-693505 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appl. No.509 of 2011 and M.A.C.A. No.317 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 370 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned award was passed on 30th October, 2009. But according to the petitioner the application to obtain the copy of the award could be filed only on October 22, 2010 due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the office of the counsel. The said explanation is too hazy and vague, to say the least. 3. It is seen that the copy of the award was delivered to the counsel on November 22, 2010. But the appeal is seen to have been filed only on February 2, 2011. There is C.M. Appl. No.509 of 2011 and M.A.C.A. No.317 of 2011 2 absolutely no explanation for the delay between November 22, 2010 and February 2, 2011. 3. Having perused the averments in the affidavit, we are not at all 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. rkc