IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 175 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.457/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ VIJAYAN @ KUNJUMON, S/O.NARAYANAN, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, THAMPALAKADU, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. REJI SEBASTIAN, ECKATHODU HOUSE, KONDOOR VILLAGE. 2. TOMY SEBASTIAN, EATTATHOTTU HOUSE, KALAKETTY P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANJIRAPPALLY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.A.No.182 of 2009 & M.A.C.A.No.175 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J This petition is to condone the delay of 1577 days in filing an appeal against the quantum fixed by the Tribunal in its award. 2. The delay is huge and enormous. We do not find any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The reasons urged - that the Advocate was instructed to do the needful and the Advocate did not do the needful, are to say the least, not convincing at all. In our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in miscarriage of justice, the learned counsel was requested to explain the challenge on merits. We are not satisfied that any failure of justice is likely to result by our not entertaining the appeal. The main thrust of the contention is that the multiplicand reckoned as Rs.1800/- is not correct. The petitioner claimed to be a self-employed person and no evidence was produced before the Tribunal to fix a higher multiplicand M.A.C.A.No. 2 than the notional income which the Tribunal is entitled to fix. Still the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income as Rs.1,800/-. The Tribunal had accepted the assessment of disability of 31% and it was further held that the said physical disability has identical reflection on the earning capacity of the claimant. The maximum permissible multiplier under the second schedule has been adopted also. We look into these aspects only to satisfy ourselves that there is no possibility of failure of justice. 3. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the application for condonation of delay can be dismissed and it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to consider this application on merits. 4. In the result, this C.M.Application is dismissed. Consequently, M.A.C.A No.175/09 shall stand dismissed as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No. 3 M.A.C.A.No. 4 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009