IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 826 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1496/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- S.BALAKRISHNAN @ BIJU, S/O. GOPALAN ACHARI, KUNNEL PUTHUPARAMPIL HOUSE, KODINATTUMKUNNU, THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.JOMAN VARGHESE, CHAKKUNGAL HOUSE, NEDUNGADAPPALLY P.O., KARUKACHAL. 2. PRASANNAN.S/O. DIVAKARAN, KOMARAPARAMPIL KODINATTUMKUNNU, THRIKODITHANAM P.O., THRIKODITHANAM. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANGANASSERY. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- CM APPLN. 947/2009 & M.A.C.A. No. 826 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R.Raman, J. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1028 days in filing the memorandum of appeal. The Award was passed on 19th January, 2006 and appeal preferred only on April 2009. We have perused the affidavit supporting the petition for condonation of delay. It is averred that the application for the certified copy of the judgment was made only on 19.08.2008 with a delay of two years which is stated to be due to the omission from the part of the clerk attached to the office of the counsel and only later that the intimation regarding the receipt of certified copy of the Award was conveyed to the party and thereafter collected the certified copy. The appellant knows that in order to file an appeal, he requires a certified copy. He has no case that he did not know about the passing of the Award. As per the Award, where amounts have been quantified and paid to him under different heads, he can't plead ignorance of passing the Award. Award notice would have been published pursuant to which received the amount. Therefore the appellant could have alerted the clerk if at all there was any MACA No. 826 of 2009 2 omission to apply for the certified copy. No affidavit of the clerk is also filed in this case to support the averments. Thus we find hardly any reason explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the Court. It is said that he was in acute financial stringency, but the Court fee payable is only a fixed amount of Rs.1,000/- and as such no grounds are made out for the condonation of delay. 2. Coming to the merits of the contention raised in the appeal, it is stated that the enhancement of the claim arise out of removal of implants on 29.11.2006. In the counter affidavit filed by the Insurance Company it is averred that they have satisfied the award on 28.02.2006 by depositing an amount of Rs.1,82,034/-. Further it is also pointed out that disability compensation was calculated based on a medical certificate issued by a Doctor and the applicant himself did not mount the box nor the Doctor was examined and the disability itself was estimated and therefore hardly any reason for claiming further compensation for future medical aid for removing implants. It is contended that once the implant is removed, there may not be disability at all for payment of compensation. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find even on merit there is hardly any case for entertaining th appeal. Accordingly both the applications for condonation of delay and the appeal is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc