IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 384 of 2010 ------------------------------------ OPMV.1613/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANTS / PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAJU @ SHAJU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, ERALIL HOUSE, THABORE P.O., ELALAKADU KARA, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. ANISH SAJU, 9 YEARS OLD, (D.O.B.- 22/11/2000), S/O.SAJU @ SHAJU, ERALI HOUSE, THABORE P.O., ELALAKADU KARA, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE. REP.BY HIS FAHER AS NEXT FRIEND S/O.SAJU @ SHAJU, S/O.MATHEW, DO. DO. 3. AKASH SAJU, 7 YEARS OLD, (D.O.B. 3/9/02) S/O SAJU @ SHAJU, ERALIL HOUSE, THABORE P.O., ELALAKADU KARA, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE, REP.BY HIS FATHER AS NEXT FRIEND S/O.SAJU @ SHAJU, S/O.MATHEW, DO. DO. 4. KUNJAMMA, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O.LATE KORATHU, MOLAYIL HOUSE, AZHAKAM KARA, AZHAKAM P.O., MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JOY C. PAUL RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. ELDHO, S/O.CHACKO, ERALIL HOUSE, THABORE P.O., ELALAKADU KARA, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., FIRST FLOOR, KALLOOKARAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, ANGAMALY. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R-2 ADV.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln.484 OF 2010 & M.A.C.A.No.384 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of May 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the prayer is to condone the delay of 506 days in filing the appeal. 2. Admittedly, the award was passed on May 13, 2008. It is conceded by the petitioners that on receipt of the award their counsel had advised them to file an appeal. But according to the deponent, at that time he was employed in Abu- Dhabi and due to financial crisis he could not come back to India in time. Therefore, he could not contact his counsel and take steps to file the appeal. He asserts that the delay occurred because of the above reason and that there was no willful laches on his part. 3. We are not at all satisfied with the above explanation offered by the petitioners. Undoubtedly petitioners could have instructed their counsel to file the appeal. Deponent could have sent his vakalath from abroad, if in fact he could not personally come down. In any view of the matter, the explanation offered is totally unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes