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 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 2576 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.935/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS -------------- 1. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.KUNHAHAMED, PUTHENPEEDIKA HOUSE,KODUNGAPARAMBA, P.O.ARAKKUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. FATHIMA, D/.O.MOIDEENKUTTY' -DO- 3. SALMATH, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY -DO- 4. UMMER S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY -DO- 5. SAKEENA, W/O.RASHEED PUTHUR, D/O.MOIDEENKUTTY 6. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY ALL ARE RESIDING AT PUTHAN PEEDIKA HOUSE, KOUNGAPARAMBA P.O.,PARAKKUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 7. PATHUMMA, W/OL.ERACHIPPALLI ABU, M/O.SAINABA, PUTHANPEEDIKA HOUSE, P.O.ARAKKUMPARAMB, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------- 1. HIDAYATHULLA, S/O.MOHAMMED, PARANGADAN HOUSE, MARUTHALA P.O., THAZHEKKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505 MACA.NO.2576/2010 2. NOUSHAD BABU, S/O.MOHAMMED, PARANGADAN HOUSE, MARUTHALA P.O.,THAZHEKKOKDE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676505 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OBRANCH OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln. No. 3348 OF 2010 & M.A.C.A.No.2576 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 460 days in filing the appeal. 2. The impugned award was passed by the Tribunal on July 14, 2009. But according to the petitioner/appellant, he did not get any information from his counsel about the receipt of copy of the award. He contacted his counsel only in the first week of December 2010 and then he was informed that copy had already been received in July 2009 itself. There is absolutely no explanation what prevented the petitioner from making enquiries about the case, especially since appellant No.6 was examined in the case as PW1. We are not at all satisfied with the so called explanation offered by the petitioner to condone the inordinate delay. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE sv P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE