1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.421/2007 {Rakesh Kumar Versus The New India Insurance Company Ltd. & Another} Date of Order :: 12th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Anoop Agarwal for the appellant Mr. Gaurav Jain for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also for admission of the appeal. 2. The impugned award was passed on 1st February, 2006. The appeal was preferred on 30th October, 2006. There is delay of 181 days. The appellant has explained the delay in para 2 and 3 of the application as under:- “2. That the claimant/appellant is the resident of remote village. Though the learned MACT passed the judgment on 1.2.2006, but the information sent by the counsel regarding the pronouncement of the judgment was just received by the claimant/appellant on 17.8.2006. 3. That just after receipt of the information about the judgment, the claimant/appellant immediately get the copy of the judgment on 2 18.8.2006 and contacted his counsel who after going the judgment advised that the award is insufficient and the only remedy is to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Court under Section 173 of the M.V. Act.” 3. The above explanation shows that the information about passing of award on 1st February, 2006 was not received by him till 17th August, 2006. The above explanation does not appear to be genuine. If any letter was sent by his counsel and the same was not received, then an affidavit of the concerned advocate should have been filed in support of the submission and if the letter itself was received late then the same ought to have been produced with the application. Para 3 of the application further shows that certified copy was received by appellant on 18th August, 2006 but why appeal was not filed thereafter for 1 ½ months, has not been explained satisfactorily. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal in time. 4. Apart from above, I also examined the matter on merits. The appellant injured Rakesh sustained one grievous injury resulting in 10% permanent disability as per Ex. 5 – permanent disability certificate. He remained admitted in 3 hospital for about 16 days. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 11,000/- for medical bills and Rs. 30,000/- for physical pain, mental agony and permanent disability, thus, awarded total amount of Rs. 42,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. In view of number of injury and the percentage of permanent disability, I am of the view that amount of compensation awarded in the present case cannot be said to be a meager amount, but it appears to be just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. 5. In view of above discussion, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed on the ground of delay as well on merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK